advanced in The Author or in the papers published by the Society has fallen so far short of the real truth. An opinion signed has, of course,. far more weight than one that is anonymous.

I.

I entirely agree with you as to the gross unfairness of the terms which you comment on in The Author as being those indorsed by the Publishers' Association. Only a very weak vessel could possibly be induced to subscribe them, but then the raison d'être of our Society is precisely that this weaker vessel should be strengthened. That any author should give away his Tauchnitz rights, American rights, and dramatic rights, in this wholesale way seems inconceivable, but I should have thought it equally inconceivable that any honourable body of men should have asked for such a sacrifice. If in the face of your exposure any author signs such terms, then he deserves his fate. A. CONAN DOYLE.

Undershaw, Hindhead, Haslemere.

II.

I desire to call renewed attention, in addition to the points already raised, to a view of the subject that has not been received with the consideration which it deserves. It is this. The relations of author and publisher have been discussed repeatedly for the last fifteen years. During that time the position of the author and his extremely modest claims have been stated and re-stated over and over again. The latter simply ask for the same safeguards as exist in all other kinds of partnership, and it has been urged over and over again—(1) that the property belongs originally to the author: (2) that he has a right to know what any proposed agreement, except that for sale outright, means for either side: and (3) that on any form of profit-sharing agreement, including royalty, an audit of the books must be open to the author. Of course, as a matter of fact, it is open by common law, but this fact is studiously concealed.

Now, not one of these claims is even noticed. What does this mean? It may mean (1) a resolution to keep silence unless they are forced to speak or (2) an impudent refusal to answer, or even to consider, the claims of an author: or (3) a real belief that the whole administration of literary property belongs to them as a right, and that they mean to do just what they please with it.

But can they believe in this monstrous pretension? Can they really think that another man's property is to be treated exactly as they please for their own profit? Why what is the present position? It is notorious that not a single author of any position in the literary

66

:

world-not one-would consent to sign an agreement on these terms, so humorously styled equitable"! This they must know perfectly well they cannot choose but know it. No literary agent would dare to consent to such terms, not one: not even one who sells his clients to the publishers, would dare to accept such an agreement. Now since the publication of the meaning of the Cost of Production and the actual trade prices, the pecuniary position of the author has doubled in value. Yet our friends actually believe that we are going to sacrifice all the advance we have made, and to accept terms far more degrading to the author than ever were offered at any period, even the worst and lowest, in the history of literary folk. A.

III.

These terms by which publishers declare that it is "equitable" for them to have the power of pocketing as much of the profits as they please are the work of a committee which numbers on its body two names which have hitherto commanded general respect. I submit that Messrs. Longman and Murray owe it to their historical and hereditary position as publishers to explain how they defend these claims, and to show what services they render to a book which can possibly entitle them to load the returns with percentages of whatever they please on every single item either of cost or of sale. They should also explain (1) why they leave themselves the right of charging for advertisements not paid for: (2) why they ignore the common law right of everybody to audit the accounts of his own property; and (3) why they claim office expenses for themselves which they deny to the bookseller

Has not the time come when the stronger writers should make a stand and insist on the insertion of certain clauses? For instance, the unpaid advertisements and the "exchanges": the clause providing for an audit: the clause about office expenses. These should all be provided for. It would surely be perfectly easy for the author to give instructions as to these points. There would not be the least difficulty in obtaining the concessions at once. I would suggest that the author should be provided with such an agreement by the Secretary, or that the literary agent should be instructed by the author to present an agreement in which such clauses and others should be inserted.

The following seem to me the most important:

(1.) The right of audit must not be left to a common law right, but must be actually inserted in the agreement and acted

upon.

(2.) The advertisement plunder must be definitively stopped.

(3.) Office expenses must be allowed, if at all, then for all parties concerned-say 2 per cent. to author, publisher, and bookseller. Of course this allowance may not pay the office expenses, especially of the author. But the allowance will at least recognise them.

(4.) The author if he pleases may have a veto on the papers used for advertising in. (5.) No percentages at all to be charged upon anything. And any discounts allowed must be entered in the accounts.

Do you think that the publisher will refuse these terms to an author of repute? If so, let the author come to me, and I think I can show him a better way.

VII.

E.

It is greatly to be hoped that the publication of these agreements may hurry up the inevitable, namely, that publishing must become a business conducted on the same terms as all others: that of competition. So long as money is to be made out of selling the works of an author, people will be found to compete for his work, and to make, if they can, their own terms, screwing out of him as much work for as little pay as possible, and screwing out of the bookseller as much money as they can. This has always been going on under various pretences: risk, to begin with: friendship: bad times: awful expenses of production-we know the rest. Now that we know what these things really mean, we ought to be

able to fight our battles for ourselves. But since authors are not great at conducting their own affairs, we have to call in an agent whose heart should be like the nether millstone for hardness. He will not drink champagne: he will not weep over bad times: he smiles at the "heavy cost: he will not admit the risk: he is inflexible about office expenses and will not admit of friendship in business. The ways of business for all others are hard: the publishers for too many years have made their ways easy and tender for themselves. They are now entering upon paths that are gritty and ways that are thorny, like other men who buy and sell. F.

II. THE COUNTRY BOOKseller. Being away from home, and alone in a large provincial town of 140,000 people, I wanted something to read. I went out to look for a bookseller's shop, and tramped through the principal streets in search. I had almost given up my quest when I found one, and entered.

"I think you must be the only bookseller in the town," said I.

"I am the only real bookseller. There is one other, but he goes in for photographs, painted tambourines, and such like, as well as books."

"Do you really mean to say that one bookseller is enough for the wants of a town of a hundred and forty thousand inhabitants?" I asked, astounded.

will kill the libraries. They are the things that stop the sale of new books."

I chose a cheap reprint, and went out to think over what I had seen and heard.

A large and important provincial town, known the world over, with but one bona fide bookseller! One to 140,000!

Under such circumstances, how is the unknown author to have a fair chance? ALAN OSCAR.

III.—THE PUBLISHING TRADE IN GERMANY. Exclusive of specialist publications, 3477 political and advertising papers were issued in 1752 German centres last year, being at the rate of one per 12,092 inhabitants, or per 157 square kilomètres, In Switzerland the proportion is one to 7581 inhabitants, or 107 square kilomètres, while in Austria the corresponding figures are 72,290 and 1167. This is, no doubt, a consequence of the different legislation in these countries. Austria still retains the newspaper stamp. Germany has nine papers that appear more than twice daily, and 79 that appear twelve to thirteen times a week, 1185 six to seven times, and 1745 two to five times. The number of specialist publications is 3056.

The export trade in German books amounted in 1896 to the value of about 62 million marks, and the import of foreign books to 20 millions. Austria-Hungary bought 28 million marks' worth, Switzerland (in millions of marks) 7.6, the United States 7.2, Russia 5.8, England 3.2, Holland 2.8, France 2, Belgium and Scandinavia 1.2, and Italy and Denmark 800,000 marks' worth. From Austria-Hungary Germany imported 7.2 million marks' worth of books; from Switzerland, 3.2; from France, 3.8; from Holland and the United States, 1.6; from Russia, more than 700,000 marks' worth; and from England, 650,000 marks' worth. The small value of the books imported from England is evidently due to the fact that Tauchnitz and other German firms publish enormous numbers of English works.-Standard.

IV. THE INTERNATIONALE LITERA

TURBERICHTE.

Those members of the Society of Authors who read German may be glad to be made acquainted with the fortnightly Internationale Literaturberichte (Leipzig, Grimmaischer Steinweg, No. 2; quarterly subscription, 1.75 marks, annual ditto, including postage to England, 7.50 marks), the official organ of the " Deutscher SchriftstellerVerband," "Verein für Massenverbreitung guter Schriften," ""Litterarischen Vereine Minerva und Neue Klause," "Deutscher Shriftstellerinnen

bund," and of the "Deutscher Press Club zu New York." For some little time the periodical has been courteously forwarded to our offices by the editor, and we have much pleasure in recommending it to the notice of our readers. Its contents are not merely official. Two or more articles on literary subjects of the day appear in each number, and in addition to these, very useful lists of new books in German, French, English, and Italian. Newly appearing German periodicals are also announced. In conclusion, some literary gossip, a few short notices of books, and (a feature interesting to book collectors) announcements of the latest catalogues published by the principal German secondhand booksellers make up a goodly amount of information in return for the very moderate price of the publication.

V. THE RIGHT TO DESTROY.

Mr. D. F. Hannigan sends us the following letter, together with the post-card referred to. The latter simply says that the firm will be pleased to receive 4d. in stamps, to cover postage of the MS., "otherwise we must destroy it." The qu stion is, whether they have the right to destroy a MS. under the circumstances. Of course it may be argued that an author cannot expect any house to keep a MS., after refusal, indefinitely, and then comes the question what to do if the author does not send stamps.

The Editor, The Author.-Dear Sir,-I would like to know whether, when an author submits a MS. to a publisher, and omits to enclose stamps for return of the MS., the publisher has a right to destroy the MS. I happen to be a barrister, and I was certainly under the impression that the destruction or mutilation of MSS. without authority from the owner was a criminal offence.

Early in January, 1897, I submitted a MS., entitled "Tales of Witchcraft," to Mr. David Nutt. I intended, as I had heard from him that he did not see his way to undertake the publication at his own cost, to send him stamps for return. By inadvertence I neglected to do so. Judge of my astonishment at receiving from him a post-card (which I enclose) stating that, unless stamps were sent, he would destroy the MS. Has he any such right by law?-Yours faithfully, D. F. HANNIGAN.

[NOTE BY THE SECRETARY.-The answer to this paragraph seems to be quite clear. Mr. Nutt would have no right whatever to destroy the MS. If he did so destroy it he certainly would not be open to criminal proceedings, but the author could bring an action for damages. If, however, the author did not return the stamps the publishers of course might be free either to return the MS. postage not paid, or return it postage paid and sue the author (the latter would be a bad plan from the publishers' point of view) or retain it at his office until the author chose to comply with his request.-G. HERBERT THRING.]

VI.

NOTES AND NEWS.

THE BOOK TRADE WITH AMERICA.

The book trade between the United Kingdom and the United States for the eleven months ending May 1897 was as follows:

Exported from England, duty free £177,496

167,076

166,712

VII.

AMALGAMATION OF PUBLISHERS.

The firm of Bentley is absorbed by the firm of Macmillan. Whether the absorption will in any way advance the interests of literature or the position of literary people remains to be seen. Those who formerly rallied round Bentley will perhaps rally round Macmillan, and perhaps they will not. The papers have been giving the history of the Bentleys, which is interesting on account of the names which have been from time to time connected with them. Some of them have dwelt upon the honourable character of the late firm, a thing which one is always pleased to learn, especially if the assurance is based upon the evidence of the authors concerned.

IN MEMORIAM.—E. LYNN LINTON.

Reverberant in the van her trumpet blew ;
Tried Champion of the weak against the strong,
For cause she loved, 'gainst cause she loathed as wrong,
"Ever a fighter," her keen sword she drew,
Eager to smite the ignoble thro' and thro',

But tenderest of the tender-Where the Song

To shrine thy name for aye above the throng,
O Woman sweet, and truest of the true!

Now, where o'er Cumbria's crags grey mists are curl'd,
No more with Thought's illusive strivings vex't,
No more by Life's enigma dread perplex't,
She sleeps her armour doffed, ber banner furled :
Brave worker in the vineyard of this world,
Flash yet diviner influence from the next!

C. A. KELLY.

N another column will be found a note in which a writer complains of having to sign a document resigning his copyright. It is a very common trick to send a printed form of receipt which the author is expected to sign without perceiving that by doing so he has been trapped into resigning his copyright. In such a case as this the author only has to remember that he must put his pen through the words which convey the forfeiture of copyright, and that he must substitute for them the words "Serial right only in England," or words to that effect. By this means he may preserve his property. The words are, generally, "for the whole rights of," &c. Of course, if the editor bargains beforehand for the copyright, it becomes then a simple question of acceptance or refusal.

"The authors and writers of Great Britain are under lasting obligations to Sir Walter Besant. Under the title of The Author that gentleman publishes each month a journal that offers to the professional and amateur writer so able and convincing a proof of his superiority to the publisher that the entire guild could be readily pardoned for rising and calling the editor blessed. In the June number of The Author (which is published, of course, in London) the ways of the grasping and mercenary publisher of books are laid bare in a dozen ways. The long-suffering writer is taught how vast a profit there always is in the publication of his work; he is shown how easily and consciencelessly he is robbed; he is implored not to dispose of anything so valuable as a virgin manuscript until he has secured a contract giving himself all the profits and the publishers nothing but deficits and debts. The Author should flourish amazingly. It doubtless does."-The Criterion (New York), July 23.

The above was sent to me by three or four anonymous persons, acting independently, yet with one consent, all presumably anxious to convince me that a certain portion of the Press of New York still maintains its reputation. I do not know the paper the Criterion-at all, save from the single number sent to me, which contains this remarkably truthful statement. The trick of it is to state a small portion of the truth sandwiched between other statements that not even Barnum could call truths. Thus The Author does really, as stated by the fabricator, lay bare the ways of the grasping and mercenary publishers in as many ways as can be discovered-thanks to the committee of the

:

Publishers' Association we have now learned a good many more than were previously suspected by most of us. But as the editor is not engaged in publishing, there is no possible question of "superiority" to publishers. Again, the writer is nowhere taught by The Author "how vast a profit there always is in the publication of his work"-the word "always," instead of "may be," conveys the fabrication: he is shown how easily he is robbed that is true: he is not implored to secure all the profits and "give the publisher all the deficits and debts": that is a falsehood: nor is it possible, if you come to think of it, for the same book to have both profits and deficits. We are accustomed to this sort of thing in one or two of our own papers: it occurs in them whenever the editor can be persuaded to slip in such a paragraph. But why does a New York paper go out of its way to invent stuff like this about a matter with which its readers can have no possible concern? And why this parade of misrepresentation over the management by English writers of their own property?

It is not the first time that an American paper has offered a prayer to the Father of Fabrications, and obtained that prayer, for freedom of imagination in speaking about me. In my humble person I have received several courtesies of the same pleasing kind from the same quarter. On another occasion in instance, a Boston paper of the baser sort informed its readers that I had for a whole twelvemonth been lecturing through the States "on Theosophy, accompanied by a lady who was not his wife." I do not know which was the more impudent charge. And another paper, whose name I forget, once informed its readers that, in certain writings or remarks of mine, I had been comparing myself with Thackeray, "to the great disadvantage of the latter!" Meantime The Author, and the Society which publishes it, are as prosperous as can be expected, and their friends the publishers have now condemned themselves in far plainer and harder language than The Author has ever used concerning them.

:

No one must judge of America or the Americans by quotations or extracts from certain specimens of their Press. It is quite possible to have troops of friends in the States, and yet to receive such tributes as these. In one sense the writers are impartial like the sunshine and the rain they bless all alike, the small as well as the great. There are papers in our own country, I dare say, which are as bad as any in America, but we need not rake the gutters to find them. It must be remembered, when we speak of the American VOL, IX,

Press, that it is not all like the Criterion and the other papers I have mentioned: that the leading articles: the "London Letters" and telegrams: and the columns of news in American papers do contain a great deal that is fair and appreciative, while it is critical, concerning our ways, our actions, and our people. It must also be remembered that the American point of view is not ours. Especially have I observed this desire to be fair in their London Letter, which seems to me, so far as I have had the opportunity of reading it in American papers, to be generally written in a spirit of which we have nothing to complain. Of course, I have not seen the London Letter, if there is one, of the New York Criterion. If one could venture to suggest anything to the editor of a London daily, I would ask him to think over the appointment of an American journalist to write for his London columns a London Letter on English affairs as they seem to an American with friendly critical eyes. Such a letter would sometimes lead that editor's readers to consider themselves.

The Committee cannot be expected to transact any business of importance at this time of year. Nothing further, therefore, has been done with reference to the Draft Agreements of the Publishers' Association. I trust that something will be done, and I hope that the expression of opinion which will be found in another column will be continued. Above all, it is to be hoped that the leading and more successful writers, to whom no publisher would dare to present any one of their Draft Agreements, will consider their less successful brethren and make a public stand. It is not enough to say: "These Agreements make no difference to me, because I should never consent to them in my own case." It is necessary to take care that they should be offered to no one, and that the voice of condemnation should be loud and unmistakable.

A line or two in a letter of Robert Browning's, written in the year 1868, makes one ask whether, in the year 1868, publishers held the same remarkable views about profits and their "equitable" share of them which they boldly advance thirty years afterwards? From my own recollection I am inclined to think that the practice was the same, but that the profession was different. This is what Browning says of his new poem : "One"-that is, a publisher, only Browning calls him by his old-fashioned name, a bookseller". -" sent to propose last week to publish it at his risk, giving me all the profits, and to pay me the whole in advance, for the incidental advantages of my name.' Generous creature! "All the profits."

6

K