384.  It is not necessary that the author should avail himself of this intervention, although it is the interest of the publisher that he should; and booksellers usually maintain that the author cannot procure his paper or printing at a cheaper rate if he go at once to the producers.  This appears from the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons in the Copyright Acts, 8 May, 1818.

Mr O. Rees, bookseller, of the house of Longman and Co., Paternoster Row, examined: 

Q. Suppose a gentleman to publish a work on his own account, and to incur all the various expenses; could he get the paper at 30s. a ream?

A. I presume not; I presume a stationer would not sell the paper at the same price to an indifferent gentleman as to the trade.

Q. The Committee asked you if a private gentleman was to publish a work on his own account, if he would not pay more for the paper than persons in the trade; the Committee wish to be informed whether a printer does not charge a gentleman a higher rate than to a publisher.

A. I conceive they generally charge a profit on the paper.

Q. Do not the printers charge a higher price also for printing, than they do to the trade?

A. I always understood that they do.

385.  There appears to be little reason for this distinction in charging for printing a larger price to the author than to the publisher, provided the former is able to give equal security for the payment.  With respect to the additional charge on paper, if the author employs either publisher or printer to purchase it, they ought to receive a moderate remuneration for the risk, since they become responsible for the payment; but there is no reason why, if the author deals at once with the paper-maker, he should not purchase on the same terms as the printer; and if he choose, by paying ready money, not to avail himself of the long credit allowed in those trades, he ought to procure his paper considerably cheaper.

386.  It is time, however, that such conventional combinations between different trades should be done away with.  In a country so eminently depending for its wealth on its manufacturing industry, it is of importance that there should exist no abrupt distinction of classes, and that the highest of the aristocracy should feel proud of being connected, either personally or through their relatives, with those pursuits on which their country’s greatness depends.  The wealthier manufacturers and merchants already mix with those classes, and the larger and even the middling tradesmen are frequently found associating with the gentry of the land.  It is good that this ambition should be cultivated, not by any rivalry in expense, but by a rivalry in knowledge and in liberal feelings; and few things would more contribute to so desirable an effect, than the abolition of all such contracted views as those to which we have alluded.  The advantage to the other classes, would be an increased acquaintance with the productive arts of the country an increased attention to the importance of acquiring habits of punctuality and of business and, above all, a general feeling that it is honourable, in any rank of life, to increase our own and our country’s riches, by employing our talents in the production or in the distribution of wealth.