NEWSPAPER POST IN ENGLAND
In England newspapers have enjoyed special privileges in regard to transmission by post since about the middle of the seventeenth century. The origin of the privilege is to be looked for in the special circumstances under which the early newspapers, and the newsletters and newsbooks from which they were derived, were issued, and the means by which the news included in them was obtained.
At that period the post was the chief means by which news could be collected or distributed. The newsletters were distributed by post,[254] and the news which they contained was for the most part obtained through the agency of the Post Office from correspondents in various parts of the country. It was, indeed, an important part of the function of the Post Office to furnish news to the Court, and to the other departments of State, as well as to the general public.[255]
In 1659 General Monck appointed Henry Muddiman, a journalist who had already issued the Parliamentary Intelligencer and the Mercurius Publicus, to write on behalf of the Royalist cause. In consideration of his services he was, after the Restoration, given the privilege of free transmission for his letters.[256] This gave him an advantage over other journalists, and his newsletters and newsbooks became extremely popular. In 1663, however, he was supplanted by Roger L'Estrange, a Royalist who had not to that time been properly recompensed for his faithfulness. L'Estrange was an able writer, who after the passing of the Licensing Act of 1662 had been requested to draw up proposals for the regulation of the Press. As a reward for his services in that connection he was given the office of Surveyor of the Press, his remuneration being the sole privilege of writing and publishing newsbooks and advertisement. L'Estrange also secured the privilege of free postage from Lady Chesterfield, one of the farmers of the Post Office.[257]
L'Estrange's privilege put an end to Muddiman's newsbooks, but in no way interfered with his newsletters and his right to free postage. He was able, therefore, to continue
his newsletters, and did so with great success. After the Restoration Muddiman had attached himself to Sir Edward Nicholas, one of the principal Secretaries of State, and his Under-Secretary, Joseph Williamson, from whom he had been in the habit of obtaining part of his news. Williamson was a grasping man, who became jealous of the success of the newswriters, and finding that L'Estrange was unpopular, conceived the idea of getting the control of the whole business into his own hands. He therefore suggested that Muddiman should go to Oxford, where the Court had removed owing to the plague, and publish a new journal in opposition to L'Estrange. While Muddiman was at Oxford, Williamson would obtain by an agent in the Post Office, James Hickes, the names of all his correspondents.[258] The plan was eminently successful, and on the 16th November 1665 the Oxford Gazette appeared, to be transformed a few months later, with its twenty-fourth issue (5th February 1665-6), into the London Gazette. Muddiman, however, gained knowledge of Williamson's designs regarding his correspondents, and on the 8th February 1666 left the Gazette. Williamson thereupon took control of its publication, and, with the assistance of Hickes, continued its issue. He appointed correspondents in all the leading seaports, and in a few other English towns, and also in continental cities, who were required to furnish accounts of passing events. In return for their services the correspondents received regularly copies of the Gazette. Both the letters from correspondents and the Gazettes which were their reward passed free of postage.[259] The regular supply of a copy of the Gazette was so great a privilege that it was often regarded as sufficient wages for a post-messenger or even a deputy-postmaster.[260]
This became a recognized practice before the end of the seventeenth century, and the privilege was regarded as forming part of the ordinary emoluments of the deputy-postmasters.[261] The Gazettes were sent out from London by officers known as Clerks of the Road, under the frank of these officers; and the privilege of franking these Gazettes became extended so that the Clerks of the Road ultimately became entitled to frank any newspaper to whomsoever addressed.[262] In the eighteenth century the Clerks of the Road developed the exercise of their privilege. They accepted subscriptions and undertook the supply of newspapers generally throughout the country. They became, in fact, newsagents. Their newspaper business was something quite apart from their duties as officers of the Post Office. It was conducted in a separate building, by a separate staff, and they found it very lucrative.[263] The postage on newspapers at the letter rate would have been prohibitive. Hence newspapers either went under frank or did not go by post at all, and the whole business of distribution through the post fell into the hands of the Clerks of the Road. Their
profits were in part applied to the discharge of certain payments—the salaries of some of the inferior clerks and some charitable payments—in connection with the Post Office.[264]
In 1764 the privilege was explicitly recognized by statute,[265] but the same Act gave a severe blow to the whole system by authorizing members of Parliament to send newspapers free of postage. The members did not confine the exercise of the privilege to newspapers sent by or to them for their own use, but granted orders for free postage to booksellers and newsagents on a liberal scale.[266] The booksellers naturally
cut the prices charged by the Clerks of the Road. The charge of the latter had been £5 a year for a daily paper, and £2 10s. a year for an evening paper. The booksellers in 1770 advertised a charge of £4 a year for a daily paper, and £2 a year for an evening paper.[267] As a result a large part of the traffic went to the booksellers, and the profits of the Clerks of the Road fell so rapidly that it was soon found necessary to relieve them of the charges on their profits.[268]
Efforts were made to check the abuse of the privilege of franking of newspapers held by members of Parliament under the Act of 1764. An Act of 1802 (42 Geo. III, cap. 63) required not only that the member should sign the newspaper packets, but that the whole superscription, together with the date of posting and the name of the post-town in which the paper was intended to be posted, should be in his handwriting. The member must, moreover, himself be in the post-town where the paper was posted on the date shown on the paper. These regulations were not long maintained. They were probably too stringent to be enforced, and in the course of a few years the appearance on the newspaper or wrapper of any member's name, whether written by himself or by any other person, or even printed, was sufficient to secure free transmission through the post. In 1825 the conditions were definitely repealed, and newspapers became legally entitled to free transmission by post.[269]
There were reasons why the Government and the Post Office did not suppress the extension of the privilege accorded to newspapers. At this time heavy general taxes
were imposed on newspapers—the paper duty, the advertisement duty, and the stamp duty.
These charges had been first imposed in the early years of the eighteenth century, when newspapers were changing character, and they were in the nature of restrictions on the liberty of the Press, a continuation of the restrictions which had previously been maintained by means of Licensing Acts.[270] Newspapers were at that time ceasing to be mere chronicles of events, and were beginning to publish comments and to criticize persons and parties. A Bill to impose a tax of 1d. a copy on all periodical publications was brought into Parliament in 1701, but was abandoned owing to the opposition of the newspaper proprietors, who represented that they were in the habit of selling their papers at a ½d. a copy.[271] In 1712 a message from the Crown, adverting to the undesirable character of the new development of newspaper enterprise, recommended that a remedy be found without delay. The result was the imposition of a stamp duty of ½d. the sheet on all newspapers of a sheet and a half.[272] The privileges with regard to their transmission by post were, however, in no way interfered with.
In 1776 the tax was raised to 1½d. a copy, in 1789 to 2d., in 1794 to 2½d., and in 1815 to 4d., at which amount it stood until 1836. In 1819 onerous restrictions with regard to registration, bonds, and sureties were imposed, mainly with the view of preventing the issue of publications of undesirable character.[273]
In consideration of these charges the Government were prepared to allow free transmission by post. Moreover, the franking privilege of the Clerks of the Road was favoured as an economy. They argued that as these officers received considerable sums from their newspaper business their salaries from the Post Office were correspondingly low, and if the newspaper business were taken from them it would be necessary for the Post Office to make good the loss in income which they would suffer.[274] It would seem that there was at this time no conception of charging a rate of postage on newspapers; and so far the authorities were right in thinking the abolition of the privilege would cause an addition to the expenses of the Post Office, in compensation for which there would be no increase in revenue. Whatever were the taxes paid to other departments, it was clearly in the financial interest of the Post Office, so long as newspapers passed free by post, to retain a system which enabled certain of its officers to obtain part of their income from special arrangements for the distribution of the newspapers, instead of from Post Office funds.
The Clerks of the Road still held an advantage over the ordinary newsagents. The local postmasters acted as their agents, and they had, moreover, the important privilege of posting their papers later. Newsagents were not permitted to post after seven o'clock, but the Clerks of the Road could post as late as eight o'clock. They were able, therefore, to retain a considerable business. In 1829 it was estimated that as many as one-eighth of all the newspapers sent out from London were sent by the Clerks of the Road.[275] The privilege of late posting was withdrawn in 1834, and their business then ceased.[276]
It seems anomalous that at the same time that the Government, with the object of restricting the publication and distribution of newspapers, imposed a heavy stamp duty and a duty on advertisements, they should have assisted, by allowing free transmission by post, the distribution of such newspapers as were able to survive the impositions; but the heavy taxes were intended to prevent the issue of cheap newspapers, and expensive papers could only find sale among those who were not attracted by dangerous doctrines, political or otherwise.[277] In the view of the Government this aristocratic character ensured, moreover, a high moral tone in the Press. Without such taxes the English Press might become a moral danger and might conceivably sink to the level of the American Press of the day, which, according to some eminent persons, was very low indeed.[278] The question of free transmission by post received little attention. Chief interest was centred on the allegation that the stamp duty so raised the price of legitimate newspapers as to place them beyond the reach of any but the well-to-do.
The question of allowing the free publication of newspapers, or of, at least, reducing the heavy burdens under which they lay, became urgent after the passing of the Reform Act of 1832.[279] The increase in the number of people directly interested in political affairs through the extension of the franchise, and the awakened general interest in social and economic problems, not only produced a great demand for
newspapers, but made necessary provision for the dissemination of accurate political intelligence.[280] Numerous unstamped papers, which found a ready sale, were issued in various parts of the country, in defiance of the law. Thus, in London, one of these papers, The Poor Man's Guardian, an able and "Socialistic" paper, bore on its title-page a notification that it was deliberately published contrary to law, in order to test "the power of right against might."[281]
The Government took strong action against such publications. Numerous prosecutions were undertaken, and a large number of persons in various parts of the country were imprisoned; but the circulation of the papers could not be checked. Popular sentiment was largely on the side of the
publishers and sellers of unstamped papers, sympathy being so strong that frequently subscriptions for their benefit were raised.[282]
It became apparent very soon after the passing of the Reform Act that the heavy duty could not be maintained. It was indeed so high, and the sale of the unstamped publications was so great, that in the years after 1831 there was an actual diminution in the yield of the stamp duty. In 1836 the Government were constrained to deal with the question. They introduced a Bill providing for the reduction of the duty from 4d. a sheet to 1d. a sheet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the reduction was simply a concession to public necessity and expediency. If the duty were maintained at its then existing level, public feeling against it would increase, and might lead to a general disposition to encourage illegal publications. The reduction would, moreover, assist the moral improvement of the people.
The reduction of the duty was not carried without opposition. The Times, which had attained its position under the old duties, and the other great newspapers then successfully conducted, were opposed to the reduction, foreseeing the possibility of the rivalry of new and cheap competitors.[283] An attempt was made to argue that the benefit would not accrue to the public, since the public did not in general buy newspapers but went to the public-house to hear them read. Such persons would still go to the public-house, and would therefore derive no benefit from the reduced price: the advantage would be with the publican. On the other hand, it was anticipated that the reduction of the duty would
so cheapen the newspapers that they would be brought within reach of all. Mr. Spring Rice said he knew that "the newspaper was one of the great attractions to take the poor man from home to visit the public-house; if, therefore, the adoption of this proposition tended to keep the poor man at home, it would afford a great moral aid to the improvement of the people."[284] The moral uplifting of the poor man was a mighty shibboleth in those days, and one which gave a power to these arguments.
The rates fixed by the Act of 1836 were 1d. for the first sheet, not exceeding 2,295 superficial square inches, and a halfpenny for a second sheet not exceeding 1,148 square inches. The existing provisions with regard to registration and sureties were continued. They were considered of importance, in view of the likelihood of the establishment of cheap irresponsible papers which might be found publishing slanderous and scurrilous, if not blasphemous, statements.
There is little doubt that the Government had in mind a wish still to keep some restriction on the Press, and the Radicals always took that view. The penny duty undoubtedly had the effect of preventing the issue of really cheap newspapers.[285] Although in Parliament the Government argued that they were entitled to the penny as a postage charge,[286] it is unlikely that they did not realize how illogical it would be to charge a penny stamp duty on every copy of a newspaper that was printed, in order to secure the free transmission by post of such copies as the publisher might wish to distribute by that means.[287] The proportionate
numbers of newspapers sent or not sent by post would not be the same for all publications. Such a provision was therefore bound to work unequally. Moreover, the new duty meant that it would still be impossible to issue a newspaper at the price of one penny, and the cheap newspaper was still barred. The duty was in fact still a restrictive tax; and by those who were opposed to all "taxes on knowledge," of which the newspaper duty had been considered one, the question was never regarded as settled by this reduction.[288]
The official Whigs did not say much on the question of the restrictive character of the duty. The Radicals were not so careful to hide the repressive side. While not suggesting that the Government (with whom they voted) desired the continuance of a restrictive duty, they roundly accused the Opposition of desiring to restrain the dissemination of intelligence, "in order to keep up their influence over a
certain class of people, and at the same time to perpetuate the ignorance which had hitherto hung about them."[289]
After the passing of the Act with its definite postal privilege for newspapers coming within its provisions, questions arose as to the status with regard to transmission by post of certain publications which were not newspapers of the ordinary type, but rather of the nature of critical or literary reviews. The proprietors of these publications desired to transmit by post a part of their issues. They were not, however, prepared to pay at the letter rate by the ounce, but wished to bring under the Stamp Act that portion of their impression which would pass by post, and pay duty accordingly on those copies only. This course was agreed to by the Government in 1838,[290] subject to a maximum limit of weight per copy of 2 ounces. The privilege was at first conceded only to periodicals, termed "class" newspapers, dealing with a particular subject and addressed to a certain class of the community, such as, for instance, papers relating to law, medicine, or architecture. It was restricted to papers dealing with what might be termed the higher intellectual subjects. These were held to form fair ground of exemption;
but other specialist papers relating to subjects less intellectual then appeared; such as papers relating to turf news, or reporting cases before the police courts. These papers being entirely devoted to one subject, it became a question whether the privilege of stamping only a part of their impression could be given them. Instead of attempting any sort of discrimination in such cases, the Government made one general rule that all papers devoted to the discussion of one subject should be accorded the privilege. Thereupon a great variety of such papers came into existence, and very soon some of them began to include in their issues matter which could only be regarded as news of a general character. This raised a further question: how much such general news should be regarded as destroying the "class" character of the publication. The Government found themselves in a difficulty. If the law was not rigorously enforced, the papers paying the tax raised a great outcry against the injustice to themselves; and if the law was enforced in respect of those "class" publications which published general news, there was a great outcry against the discrimination between the "class" papers.[291]
The whole position in regard to these papers became unsatisfactory and anomalous.[292] It was, in point of fact, found impossible to enforce the law. The outbreak of the Crimean War led to a development which reduced the whole position to absurdity. Publications were issued giving the latest and fullest available intelligence from the seat of war. These publications confined themselves strictly to the subject of the war. They published nothing on any other topic; and on that ground, although devoted entirely to the publication of news of burning interest, they claimed to be exempt from the newspaper duty in common with all other "class" newspapers.[293]
In the Session of 1854 the House of Commons passed a Resolution, although it was opposed by the Government, affirming that the laws in reference to the periodical press and newspaper stamp were "ill-defined and unequally enforced," and that the subject demanded the early consideration of Parliament. The Government gave the matter their attention. Mr. Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, prepared a plan which was embodied, with modifications, in a Bill introduced in the following Session by his successor. This Bill provided for the abolition of the duty except on such copies as it might be desired to send by post. The proposal was welcomed as the abolition of the last of the taxes on knowledge, and a liberation of the Press.[294] The only serious opposition to the Bill was made on the ground that in the exceptional circumstances of the time—the nation being engaged in a war—the loss of revenue could be ill-afforded; and that the withdrawal of the duty would lower the moral character of the Press, and open the way for seditious and blasphemous publications and for unrestrained libellous attacks on the Government, on public authorities, and private individuals.[295] The Government justified
their proposals on the ground that the administration of the existing law had become exceedingly difficult, and that the resolution of the previous session condemning the ambiguity of the existing law and the unsatisfactory character of its administration left them little choice in the matter.[296]
An amendment to the Bill of 1855, proposing the reduction of the stamp duty to ½d., which was in effect providing for the transmission of newspapers by post at the uniform rate of ½d., was opposed by the Government. There was no desire to make the postage of newspapers a source of revenue. On this point there was general agreement. At the same time there was no disposition to carry newspapers at less than cost. Sir Rowland Hill, in the course of his evidence before the Committee of 1851, had said that the Post Office could profitably carry newspapers at a penny,[297] and that it was unlikely that they could be carried profitably for a halfpenny.
Members of the Government and other members of the House were convinced that a halfpenny rate would involve a loss, and they opposed the amendment on that ground.[298]
The Act 16 & 17 Vict. cap. 63 (1853) had reduced the stamp duties on newspapers,[299] and repealed the duties on advertisements. A further Act (the Newspaper Stamp Duties Act of 1855, 18 & 19 Vict. cap. 27), repealed the stamp duty, as such, in respect of newspapers, and provided that periodical publications conforming to certain conditions should be entitled to free transmission by post, if "printed within the United Kingdom on paper stamped for denoting the rate of duty now imposed by law on newspapers." The chief conditions were that the publication should be issued at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days, should bear the title and date of publication at the top of every page, and should not be printed on or bound in pasteboard or cardboard. The maximum limit of weight for publications not strictly newspapers, which in 1854 had been raised to 3 ounces, was now abolished, and newspapers and all other stamped periodical publications were
made subject to the same restrictions as to number of sheets and extent of letterpress, etc. Concurrently with the passing of this Act, the book post rates were reduced with the view of permitting the transmission of unstamped newspapers at low rates of postage.[300]
Under the Act of 1855, stamp duty at the rate payable at that time under the existing law must be paid in order to secure the privilege of free transmission of newspapers by post. The duty was chargeable according to the number of sheets; and in the case of some leading newspapers, such as The Times and the Illustrated London News, amounted to 1½d. per copy for each issue. The proprietors of these publications in 1858 approached the Post Office with the view of obtaining a reduction of the charge for the transmission of their papers by post. This request was submitted by the Post Office, and was met by the Government in a liberal spirit. In view of the importance now attached by Parliament to the free circulation of newspapers, as shown by the removal of taxation from them, an object of scarcely inferior importance to the circulation of letters, it was now decided that since the whole of the existing system rested on the assumption that the free circulation of newspapers in general was an object of importance, and one to be attained even at a disproportionate cost to the Post Office, a line should not be drawn so as to exclude from the lowest rate one paper, and that paper the one with the largest circulation. Such was the result of the existing limitation to 4 ounces of the weight of newspapers which might be carried by the post for 1d., and the limit was therefore raised from 4 ounces to 6 ounces.
In 1866 the question was raised in the House of Commons whether the Post Office charge could be reduced, especially in view of the fact that railway companies were distributing newspapers at a uniform rate of ½d. a copy. In 1869 the question was again raised in Parliament. A resolution was moved in favour of an inland rate of ½d. for 2 ounces on printed matter, and a postage of ½d. on newspapers. It was urged that the concession would be of special value in rural districts: it would indeed "be hard to say what the effect might be in time on the social condition of the people."
In several continental countries newspapers were already transmissible by post at very low rates. Against the possible objection that by introducing a rate lower than the 1d. rate they were jeopardizing its maintenance for letters, and that the proposal might therefore lead to a general ½d. rate, it was argued that so far from that being the case, the best way of ensuring the permanence of the 1d. rate was to grant the concession asked.[301]
The Marquess of Hartington, the Postmaster-General, was unable to accept the motion because he thought such proposals, before being assented to by the House, should be thoroughly looked into to discover whether there was a reasonable probability that the loss of revenue would or would not be a permanent loss, and the Post Office should be given ample time to consider whether the additional duties which would be thrown upon it could be undertaken with due regard to other services, which were of greater importance than the transmission of circulars or newspapers. The influx of a largely increased number of circulars and newspapers would cause serious embarrassment in the practical working of the Post Office, and might impair the efficiency of the service in respect of letters. The primary business of the Post Office being the "rapid and punctual transmission of letters," such a result would give just cause for dissatisfaction.
The Marquess of Hartington asked that the motion should not be pressed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he had not got £300,000 to give away. Mr. Gladstone also emphasized the seriousness of the financial aspect of the proposals, and assured the House that the Government honestly intended to investigate the question, however much their suggestion for deferring a vote upon it might look like a pretext for evading it altogether. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the previous question, the motion was lost by a large majority. A main contention of the advocates of the reduction of rate was that in many
foreign countries—in France, in Belgium, in Switzerland, in the United States—extremely low rates of postage for newspapers were in operation, and what was possible in those countries ought to be possible in England.
Following this vote in the House of Commons the matter was further considered at the Post Office, and in the next session an Act was passed providing that any newspaper conforming to certain conditions, the chief of which were that it should be issued at intervals of not more than seven days and should consist wholly or in great part of political or other news or of articles relating thereto or to other current topics, should be entitled to transmission by post at the rate of ½d. per copy irrespective of weight. The privilege of retransmission was withdrawn.[302]
The statutory basis of the newspaper post has remained unchanged since 1870, and the provisions of the Act of 1870 were included in the Post Office Act of 1908, which contains the present authority for the privilege. There has been some necessary interpretation by the Post Office of the definition of a newspaper as given in the Act. The chief points on which difficulty has arisen are (1) as to the amount of news-matter required in a publication, and (2) as to the character of the matter which can be accepted as news-matter. The Act provides that the publication should consist "wholly or in great part of political or other news or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics." This
requirement is considered to be satisfied if as much as one-third of the publication consists of matter accepted as news. The proportion, when fixed, was based on an examination of the proportion of news-matter contained in the average newspaper, and represents the actual proportion then generally met with. There is no provision regarding the proportion to be maintained between the size of a newspaper within the meaning of the Act and its supplement, but, under the accepted interpretation of the statute, a newspaper may contain a supplement of equal size, and that supplement may consist wholly of advertisements. The result of this is that publications containing a proportion of only one-sixth of news-matter may pass at the newspaper rate of postage. As to the second requirement, a strict interpretation of the regulation is not insisted on, and, in general, articles, pictures, or drawings relating to any matters of current or topical interest are accepted.
This lack of precision in the provisions of the Act, and the consequent difficulty of framing or enforcing regulations restricting the privilege within even reasonable limits, have been largely taken advantage of, especially in recent years, by the publishers of trade and fashion papers, with the result that publications weighing in some cases as much as 3 pounds are sent through the post at the usual newspaper rate of a halfpenny. Nor are the enormous weight of these papers, and the large proportion of advertisement matter, the only objections. The news-matter on which they rely as entitling them to the newspaper privilege is often of the most doubtful character, consisting largely of accounts of shop sales or of commercial exhibitions, with lengthy descriptions of the articles displayed.
This abuse of the privilege is, however, confined to a comparatively small proportion of the newspapers entitled to transmission at the newspaper rate. With the fall in the price of paper, and the improvements in printing methods and machinery, all newspapers have tended to increase in size. But in general the increase has been small. In 1855 the average weight of newspapers passing by post was 3·1 ounces,[303] and in 1913 it had increased to 4·1 ounces. The number of papers entitled to the privilege which could be regarded as
excessively heavy is not more than about 50 (out of a total of some 2,200),[304] and although practically all these papers are published in London, and are largely distributed through the post, they do not form more than a small proportion of the total number of packets passing by newspaper post. But such of these publications of vast bulk and weight as are sent at the newspaper rate derive a great advantage—an advantage measured by the heavy loss incurred by the Post Office in respect of each such publication.[305]
Many of the moderately heavy papers, such as the ordinary sixpenny London newspapers, are for the most part in compliance both with the letter and the spirit of the regulations, and their transmission at the ½d. rate is not, perhaps, open to serious objection. But there can be little doubt that if the possibility of developments in the publication of trade journals such as have occurred, had been foreseen, some provision would have been made for the prevention of the transmission at heavy loss to the Post Office of large numbers of publications which are, in effect, trade catalogues. While the newspaper post involves a very considerable loss, it affords the public a useful facility, and one which is largely availed of for the purpose the Act of 1870 was intended to assist, viz. the dissemination of intelligence.[306]
The rate has proved too high to secure a large postal traffic in newspapers. The total number passing by post within the United Kingdom in 1913 was some 200 millions, which, in days when individual daily newspapers publish as many as a million copies of every issue, is only an insignificant portion of the newspaper traffic of the country. It is also only a small portion of the total postal traffic, which in the same year amounted to some 6,000 millions. In this respect there has been a great transformation. Under the old conditions newspapers were distributed almost exclusively by post, and formed a large proportion of the total
number of postal packets and by far the greater bulk of all the mails,[307] while now they form only an inconsiderable proportion both in bulk and number. The Post Office has no monopoly of the distribution of newspapers, and for the most part newspaper publishers themselves provide for the distribution of by far the larger part of their issues. In all the large towns this is the case.[308] Private enterprise can of course compete wherever the traffic would be profitable, and private agencies provide satisfactorily for the distribution of the vast proportion of newspapers, it being found practicable throughout a large part of the country to place newspapers on sale at the published price; and in all such cases payment of postage, which in the days of the halfpenny newspaper represents an additional charge of 100 per cent. on the published price, is out of the question. Only those for the more remote towns and country districts are left to the Post Office; but the newspaper traffic by post, although conducted at a loss, comprises so small a part of the whole postal traffic, that the result on the finances of the Post Office is not serious. If, however, such an unremunerative rate were applied to a class of traffic likely to assume large proportions the result would be financially disastrous, and this is the answer to such suggestions as those of Mr. Wells to extend the newspaper rate to other classes of printed matter.[309]
In 1913 the privilege of transmission at the ½d. rate was extended to colonial newspapers, registered for the purpose in this country.
Note.—On the 1st November 1915, as part of the war increases of postage, the rate on newspapers was altered to ½d. for every 6 ounces or part of 6 ounces.