THE ENGLISH COPYRIGHT COMMISSION. 443 



of wages. In the past it was the greediness of money-lenders that had 

 to be checked, or, as in France for many generations, the greediness of 

 hotel-keepers ; and now it appears to be the greediness of book-pro- 

 ducers that needs checking, I do not see, however, any reason for be- 

 lieving that, regulations made by law to secure cheap bread for the body 

 having failed, there is likelihood of success for regulations aiming to 

 secure cheap bread for the mind. 



Q. Then do we understand you to mean that no analogy furnished 

 by past experience in commercial affairs can be held to imply that the 

 proposed royalty plan would succeed ? 



A. I think that all the facts are against it. I find it stated in the 

 evidence lately given that there has not been raised "an insuperable 

 objection in point of principle" to the plan of a royalty. If no such 

 objection in point of principle has been raised, I think one may be 

 raised ; the objection, namely, that it is distinctly opposed to the prin- 

 ciples of free trade. One of the aims of the plan, as expressed in the 

 words of the same witness, is the " preservation of a fair profit to the 

 author." Now, on the face of it, it seems to me that any proposal to 

 secure fair profits by legislation is entirely at variance with free-trade 

 principles, which imply that profits are to be determined by the ordi- 

 nary course of business. But, further, I would point out that, if it is 

 competent for the legislature to say what is a " fair profit to the au- 

 thor," I do not see why it is not competent for the legislature to say 

 what is a fair profit to the publisher : indeed, I may say that it is not 

 only as competent but much more competent. I take it to be impos- 

 sible for the legislature to fix with anything like equity the profit of 

 authors, if profit is to bear any relation to either skill or labor, as it 

 should do ; inasmuch as one author puts into a page of his book ten 

 times as much skill as another, and, in other cases, ten times as much 

 labor as another. Hence, therefore, if they are to be paid at the same 

 percentage on the price, there is no proportion in that case secured be- 

 tween the value of the labor and what they receive. Similarly, if we 

 consider the numbers sold, the royalty which might afford ample return 

 to an author who sold a popular book in large numbers would afford 

 little return to an author wlio produced a grave book selling in small 

 numbers. Obviously, then, it is extremely difficult, and in fact impos- 

 sible, for the legislature to fix an equitable royalty ; but it is by no 

 means so difficult for the legislature to fix an equitable rate of profit for 

 the publisher. The function of the publisher is a comparatively me- 

 chanical and uniform function : the same practically for all books, the 

 same for all publishers, and hence is a thing very much easier to esti- 

 mate in respect of the proportion ; and in fact we have the evidence 

 that it can be fixed with something like fairness, inasmuch as publishers 

 themselves voluntarily accept a ten per cent, commission. Hence, I 

 say, not only does the carrying out of the principle imply that if, in 

 pursuit of alleged public advantage, the profit of the author should be 



