Trade Conspiracies: An Historical Footnote
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1954.tb00260.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1954 |
| Author | B. S. Yamey |
| Date | 01 March 1954 |
TRADE CONSPIRACIES
AN
HISTORICAL
FOOTNOTE
DID Lord Campbell decide, in
1852,
that a combination
or
ring of
booksellers and publishers, which kept up the retail prices of books,
was an illegal
or
criminal conspiracy? The precise answer
to
this question is of
no
great moment. But
it
does help
to
document
the attitude
of
the law towards combinations and conspiracies
in
restraint
of
business competition in the middle of the nineteenth
century. This, and the interest of the episode
in
which Lord
Campbell figures, must be the excuse
for
this short note.’
For
several years before
1852
(probably from
1848),
a Book-
sellers’ Association
in
London had succeeded in controlling the
retail prices at which the booYs of a group
of
influential publishers
were sold to the public. The Association worked in collaboration
with the publishers in question; according to the publishers, they
had agreed to co-operate at the request of the booksellers. The
publishers refused to supply their ‘books
on
trade terms
(or
sometimes
on
any
terms) to booksellers who were engaged in
‘‘
underselling.”
About
1851
the workings of the combination became the subject
of
strong public censure. Because of numerous adverse criticisms,
the publishers and the Booksellers’ Association decided to submit
their arrangements to the scrutiny of a panel of
‘‘
eminent literary
men
”
;
and they agreed to act in accordance with the findings
of
the panel. Several
of
the country’s “principal authors” were
invited to serve.
In
the event three agreed
to
examine the price
regulations. They were Lord Campbell (author of
Lives
of
the
Lord Chancellors, etc.),
the Dean of St. Paul’s,
Dr.
Milman (author
of
History
of
Latin Chn’stianity),
and George Grote, banker and
scholar (author of
History
of
Greece).
1
The
mmmon view seems to be that Lord Campbell decided that
it
was
sn
illegal or criminal -piracy; we, for example, Sir.
F.
Macmillan,
The Net
Book Agreement
(1994), p.
9;
E.
T.
Grether,
’’
Resale
Price
Ihintenance
in
Great Britain,”
University of California Publications in Economics,
Vol.
11
(1935), p. 267; M. Plant,
The English Book Trade
(1939), p. 439;
W.
A. Lewis,
“Monopoly and the Law,”
Modern
Law
Review,
Vol.
VI,
p.
98;
and
C. Morgan,
The House of Mamillan
(1943), p. 178. The correct view,
tlmt,Lord Campbell did not declare the combination to be illegal,
is
stated,
for example, in
a
letter
of
G.
B.
Bowes
in
Tb Booksellez,
January 2Q, 1933,
Sir
F.
Macmillan was not entirely consistent
in
his
interpretation
of
Lord
Campbell’s views. Although he stated that Lord Campbell had called the
combination an illegal conspiracy, elsewhere in the same book, reprinting an
address deliyred by him in 1898, he observed that the failure of the combination
waa due to
2
Thia note
is
based
on
reports, leading articles and correspondence
in
The
Timer,
March to June,
1852.
189
In
this note
it
is suggested that this view
is
incorrect.
p.
73.
the faint-heartedness and want
of
pluck
of
the publishere.”
To continue reading
Request your trial