On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures

by Charles Babbage

395. That the profit in retailing books is really too large, is proved by several circumstances: First, that the same nominal rate of profit has existed in the bookselling trade for a long series of years, notwithstanding the great fluctuations in the rate of profit on capital invested in every other business. Secondly, that, until very lately, a multitude of booksellers, in all parts of London, were content with a much smaller profit, and were willing to sell for ready money, or at short credit, to persons of undoubted character, at a profit of only ten per cent, and in some instances even at a still smaller percentage, instead of that of twenty-five per cent on the published prices. Thirdly, that they are unable to maintain this rate of profit except by a combination, the object of which is to put down all competition.

396. Some time ago a small number of the large London booksellers entered into such a combination. One of their objects was to prevent any bookseller from selling books for less than ten per cent under the published prices; and in order to enforce this principle, they refuse to sell books, except at the publishing price, to any bookseller who declines signing an agreement to that effect. By degrees, many were prevailed upon to join this combination; and the effect of the exclusion it inflicted, left the small capitalist no option between signing or having his business destroyed. Ultimately, nearly the whole trade, comprising about two thousand four hundred persons, have been compelled to sign the agreement.

As might be naturally expected from a compact so injurious to many of the parties to it, disputes have arisen; several booksellers have been placed under the ban of the combination, who allege that they have not violated its rules, and who accuse the opposite party of using spies, etc., to entrap them.(3*)

397. The origin of this combination has been explained by Mr Pickering, of Chancery Lane, himself a publisher, in a printed statement, entitled, 'Booksellers' Monopoly' and the following list of booksellers, who form the committee for conducting this combination, is copied from that printed at the head of each of the cases published by Mr Pickering:

Allen, J., 7, Leadenhall Street.
Arch, J., 61, Cornhill.
Baldwin, R., 47, Paternoster Row.
Booth, J.
Duncan, J., 37, Paternoster Row.
Hatchard, J., Piccadilly.
Marshall, R., Stationers' Court.
Murray, J., Albemarle Street.
Rees, O., 39, Paternoster Row.
Richardson, J. M., 23, Cornhill.
Rivington, J., St. Paul's Churchyard.
Wilson, E., Royal Exchange.

398. In whatever manner the profits are divided between the publisher and the retail bookseller, the fact remains, that the reader pays for the volume in his hands 6s., and that the author will receive only 3s. 10d.; out of which latter sum, the expense of printing the volume must be paid: so that in passing through two hands this book has produced a profit of forty-four per cent. This excessive rate of profit has drawn into the book trade a larger share of capital than was really advantageous; and the competition between the different portions of that capital has naturally led to the system of underselling, to which the committee above mentioned are endeavouring to put a stop.(4*)

399. There are two parties who chiefly suffer from this combination, the public and authors. The first party can seldom be induced to take an active part against any grievance; and in fact little is required from it, except a cordial support of the authors, in any attempt to destroy a combination so injurious to the interests of both.

Many an industrious bookseller would be glad to sell for 5s. the volume which the reader holds in his hand, and for which he has paid 6s.; and, in doing so for ready money, the tradesman who paid 4s. 6d. for the book, would realize, without the least risk, a profit of eleven per cent on the money he had advanced. It is one of the objects of the combination we are discussing, to prevent the small capitalist from employing his capital at that rate of profit which he thinks most advantageous to himself; and such a proceeding is decidedly injurious to the public.

400. Having derived little pecuniary advantage from my own literary productions; and being aware, that from the very nature of their subjects, they can scarcely be expected to reimburse the expense of preparing them, I may be permitted to offer an opinion upon the subject, which I believe to be as little influenced by any expectation of advantage from the future, as it is by any disappointment at the past.

Before, however, we proceed to sketch the plan of a campaign against Paternoster Row, it will be fit to inform the reader of the nature of the enemies' forces, and of his means of attack and defence. Several of the great publishers find it convenient to be the proprietors of reviews, magazines, journals, and even of newspapers. The editors are paid, in some instances very handsomely, for their superintendence; and it is scarcely to be expected that they should always mete out the severest justice on works by the sale of which their employers are enriched. The great and popular works of the day are, of course, reviewed with some care, and with deference to public opinion. Without this, the journals would not sell; and it is convenient to be able to quote such articles as instances of impartiality. Under shelter of this, a host of ephemeral productions are written into a transitory popularity; and by the aid of this process, the shelves of the booksellers, as well as the pockets of the public, are disencumbered. To such an extent are these means employed, that some of the periodical publications of the day ought to be regarded merely as advertising machines. That the reader may be in some measure on his guard against such modes of influencing his judgement, he should examine whether the work reviewed is published by the bookseller who is the proprietor of the review; a fact which can sometimes be ascertained from the title of the book as given at the head of the article. But this is by no means a certain criterion, because partnerships in various publications exist between houses in the book trade, which are not generally known to the public; so that, in fact, until reviews are established in which booksellers have no interest, they can never be safely trusted.