THE ENGLISH COPYRIGHT COMMISSION. 445 



A. That is one objection. There is no possibility of fixing one that 

 would apply to all works, inasmuch as the thing paid for is an extremely 

 variable thing, more variable than in almost any other occupation. 



Q. I put that question to another witness before you, but I am 

 afraid failed to make him understand me. I am therefore glad to have 

 the answer from you, in order that we may show (I think you will agree 

 with me) that no special royalty specified by act of Parliament could 

 be just to poetry, and to the drama, and to fiction, and to science, and 

 to history at the same time ? 



A. Quite so. I think it is obvious, when it is put clearly, that it 

 can not be ; and that is an all-essential objection. 



Q. (Sir JT. Holland). Nor would it in your opinion be desirable 

 that the question of determining what amount of royalty is proper in 

 each case should be vested in some registrar or some single person ? 



A. It would make the matter still worse. It would be bad to vest 

 it anywhere, but especially bad to vest it in any single official. 



Q. {Chairmaii). Are we to assume that you think the plan of a 

 royalty to be at variance with the established principles of the science 

 of political economy ? 



A. I think quite at variance with the principles of political economy. 

 The proposal is to benefit the consumer of books by cheapening books. 

 A measure effecting this will either change, or will not change, the re- 

 turns of those engaged in producing books. That it will change them 

 may be taken as certain : the chances are infinity to one against such 

 a system leaving the returns as they are. What will the change be ? 

 Either to increase or decrease those returns. Is it said that by this 

 regulation the returns to producers of books will be increased, and that 

 they only require forcing to issue cheaper editions, to reap greater profit 

 themselves, at the same time that they benefit the public ? Then the 

 proposition is that book-producers and distributors do not understand 

 their business, but require to be instructed by the state how to carry it 

 on more advantageously. Few will, I think, deliberately assert this. 

 There is, then, the other alternative : the returns will be decreased. At 

 whose expense decreased — printers', authors', or publishers' ? Not at 

 the expense of the printers : competition keeps down their profits at 

 the normal level. Scarcely at the cost of the authors ; for abundant 

 evidence has shown that, on the average, authors' profits are extremely 

 small. Were there no other motive for authorship than money-getting, 

 there would be very few authors. Clearly, then, the reduction of re- 

 turns is to be at the cost of the publisher. The assumption is that, for 

 some reason or other, the publishing business, unlike any other busi- 

 ness, needs its returns regulated by law. Thinking, apparently, of 

 prosperous publishers onl}-, and forgetting that there are many who 

 make but moderate incomes and very many who fail, and thinking only 

 of books which sell largely, while forgetting that very many books bring 

 no profits and still more entail loss, it is assumed that the publishing 



