“M’Glashan’s [? offer of] arbitration promises well, but you are quite right not to concede the acknowledgment of the a/c as a preliminary. My object would be far rather to buy than to sell, but Curry asks £2500 for his interest,—nearly as much as he gave me originally. If we could induce him to make a reasonable demand, I think I could induce a publisher to treat for the books, so that I would be more disposed now simply to press the ‘Hinton’ settlement, which, according to the a/c you have sent me, is a complete puzzle—2000 being rated as 1000 copies (as you have yourself observed).... I believe M’Glashan intends fairly by me, but, from a careless remark of Hugh Baker, he fancied he was to be immediately examined before a Master in Chancery, and with native prudence [he] abstained from opening any correspondence in the conjuncture.... Chapman’s letter will show you his opinion of the trickery the Currys are attempting. He—Chapman—said £800 would not be more than a fair sum for my interest,—all claims of ‘Hinton’ being previously settled to my satisfaction.... M’O.‘s estimate of Chapman (Hall is since dead) is perfectly correct. They are, as indeed is every bookseller of the London trade that I have conversed with, very inferior to M’G. himself in natural acuteness and knowledge of books, book-writers, and book-readers. He is without question the very ablest man in his walk, and—now that Blackwood* is gone—far above Murray, Colburn, Longman, and the rest of them; and in London, and with capital, would beat them hollow.”
* William Blackwood, founder of the firm.
To Mr Alexander Spencer.
“Riedenburg, April 13, 1847.
“M’Glashan is so far fair that he says he insisted that in my share of half profits the expense counted against me should be limited to the mere paper and press-work, and not the eleventh part of the whole original cost—authorship, engraving, stereotyping, &c. Now the question is, Is this the spirit and meaning of the a/c now furnished?*
* The letter enclosing Curry’s a/c had not yet reached
Lever. It had gone to Zurich (or via Zurich).—E. D.
“Am I then credited with all my due and debited with no more than my due? I ask this because, in my ignorance of figures, I shall be little the wiser when the a/c is before me.
“I am so far of opinion that it would be well not to couple any proportion for buying or selling with the settlement of a/cs, and for this reason: that no sum Curry could be induced to give me now would be a fair compensation for my share of the profits of a reissue,—without which speculation in view he would never have made his present steps to obtain the sole copyrights,—and I am not in a position to repurchase the books, though if Curry would put a fair price on them I believe I could effect, through another, some arrangement on the subject....
“Lastly, if Curry does not make me a suitable offer to buy or to sell, and if he intends a reissue, then comes another feature of the case worth consideration, and which would all depend on the spirit and temper he may show. What arrangement could be made for the new edition appearing with revival prefaces, &c., by me? This, of course, is a last of all results.
“As to M’G., his letter is possibly a very candid and honest exposé, but I have limited myself to the observation already quoted. With regard to the Magazine he has made a proposal—i.e., he has asked me to name my terms for a contribution of some length. I have done so, wishing to open sources of profit to myself by what I may term ‘irresponsible labour’; for I really am tired of seeing my name before the public, and more than tired of the anxiety for success each new acknowledged book brings along with it. I scarcely suppose he will accede to my terms, which are sharp ones; but less than I have asked I cannot accept, because such would at once influence my treatment by others. I’ll send him my first paper at once....