WCP5057

[1]¹

6^th Feb[ruar]y [1]900

<D[octo]^r. Alfred> [MS damaged] Russel Wallace

Dear Sir,

In reply to your favour of 1^st inst[ant]. [MS damaged] it the fact that our estimate as to production of the start[?] of the Reader² is unduly liberal, it would not affect the amount of the royalty at all appreciably. It would only mean that our tangible profit would come into effect a little earlier than otherwise. But we do not expect that the blocks³ will cost [2 words illeg.] all less than £50; &, where the book is "adopted" by School Boards,⁴ it will have to be very largely [1 word illeg.] in the Sch[ool]. B[oar]d. or [2 words illeg.]. It is the only hope of getting a [2 words illeg.] book taken up freely. We could not sensibly pay more <than a> [MS damaged] 3^d [3 pence] royalty [1 word illeg.] & book is [1 word illeg.] @ [MS damaged] which will be relatively very high in cost in proportion to the selling price. The total [1 word illeg.] profits do not show more than [1 word illeg.], of which we have offered you 3d.

Similarly it would be [1 word illeg.] [2]⁵ [MS damaged] 10d a copy, with cost of 8d, the total profit is only 2d, before[?] royalties are paid. We cannot [1 word illeg.] thinking that you are applying royalties on our expensive books to those of low selling prices. The ratio between selling price & book price gets steadily worse for the publisher — & similarly for the author as the former goes down. A 30% royalty on a 21/- [21 shilling] book is often quite feasible: a 10% royalty on a [1 word illeg.] book often[?] impossible.

We gave you the [MS blotted] hoping to make this clear. The only thing that can pay you: & still more ourselves who ^would have to find the capital & receive a lower return, would be very large sales, which we believe can be a [1 word illeg.].

We are, dear Sir, | Yours very truly | Swan Sonnenschein & Co[mpany]. L[imi]t[e]d.