The problem of the distribution of evening papers during the day is very much more difficult. One prominent evening newspaper in London has estimated that it costs as much as £1,000 per week to each paper.[8] In the first place competition is much more keen, because, while the morning paper has to reach a limited number of important distributing points at one stated time, i.e., before breakfast, it is the business of an enterprising evening paper to multiply occasions of distribution, as for instance after every race or at short intervals during an exciting cricket match, and also for the same competitive purpose to multiply points of distribution, so as to cover the widest possible field. In the second place the general traffic in London is still conducted at the same pace, at which the animals entered the ark. At all important centres the streets are blocked for half the daylight hours of the day. At Wellington Street, the westward boundary of newspaperdom, five hours daily are lost; in the city the average rate of progression is three miles an hour. For these reasons a large and fast unit of distribution, like the motor-car, is discounted in utility by the blocks in the traffic so that light carts and men on bicycles can hold their own in pace and serve a greater number of independent centres. The bicycle has a special power of penetrating a block because the police are indulgent to newspaper distribution and generally allow them to pass.

[8] See Newspaper Owner, July 27, 1912.

The modern method of distribution in London—it was invented first in the provinces—is conducted, as follows: various centres are selected—take the corner of Pall Mall and Cockspur Street for example—where staffs of boys are assembled at stated periods during the afternoon. At fixed times there come at breathless speed bundles of evening “specials” or “extras” by cart or bicycle, which are instantaneously served out to the waiting newsboys. There are thus perhaps a hundred local centres of distribution awaiting the trigger to be pulled in the central office, which will deliver the selected news all over London. Here is the point where the skilled judgment of an experienced journalist is required to select the right news and the right moment. It is a fatal thing to pull the trigger on a small occasion too soon before a big one, as for instance, if one sent all the boys away with a county cricket result ten minutes before the result of the Cambridgeshire. As a matter of fact most boys would know too much about their own business to take a special, just before an important racing event.

The distribution of evening newspapers is probably the chief point of organization, where we are probably well ahead of the American press. On the several occasions, when I have had the opportunity of comparing the two systems, I have found New York papers conspicuously behind ours in this department. This may be due to lesser competition or a less developed organization but more probably to the fact that the American public pay much less attention to sporting events than do our working classes.

CHAPTER VII
THE LONDON DAILY AND PERIODICAL PRESS

It is not possible to write about the Newspaper without making some compressed reference to the history of the press. But the history of the press can be adequately treated only in a formidable and forbiddingly dull work. The fact is that the only interesting newspapers are live newspapers. It is practically impossible to read with attention the files of bygone journals except for the purposes of research. History has already eviscerated them and what history leaves only biography or statistics can put to any use. Confined as we are to brief space our best course is to deal only with living papers, the selection of which is indeed a sufficient task and to note only such facts in their complicated lives as will be of service to us in determining the character of the British press as it is to-day. Of all that exists anterior to these it will be sufficient to notice only those parts of our subject, which have succeeded in creeping into the history of our politics or our literature. Of the foreign press no more than a brief contemporary review can be given.

England was the last in Europe to develop its own press and when it came, it appeared in a full-fledged form that is startlingly modern. During the controversies of the Civil War pamphleteering and preaching were the great English weapons and owing to the seriousness of the times both often ran into volumes. It was not until the easier days of Queen Anne that we had our first daily paper with the Daily Courant of 1702. But two years later we had a much more important event in the advent of the Review. This was started by the true father of English journalism and the greatest of all journalists, as I venture to define the term, Daniel Defoe. As I propose to deal with his journalistic character later on, I shall confine my remarks here only to the story of the papers, which he published faithfully, if rather irregularly, for nine years. This immense work was practically entirely the work of Defoe’s own hands and in its 5,000 pages it included articles on almost every subject of human knowledge. It practically established the prevailing type of English journalism, which has survived to our time. This type is neither literary nor critical, which is the prevailing style with the French, nor the mere newsgatherer, such as certain popular journals have been everywhere, but pre-eminently an organ of opinion, dealing with current topics, so as to exert political influence. In fact he was found carrying out this function of influencing opinion to an extent, which modern notions of honour would never condone, for at one time of his life about 1718, he, a Whig and Nonconformist, is found taking a share in the conduct of three Jacobite and High Church organs, Mercurius Politicus, Dormer’s News Letter and Mist’s Journal, in order, as he says himself, “to take the sting out of them” in the interests of the Whig government of the period. This embodied a peculiar view of irony, not approved of even at the time.

The Review was soon followed by other famous names, the Tatler started by Steele in 1709, the Spectator by Steele and Addison in 1711, yet while their object of supporting the Whigs was partly achieved, these journals were too far removed from the popular type to secure permanent success. Atterbury, Bolingbroke and above all Swift were supporting the other side in politics in the Examiner, but although the wit, eloquence and brilliant literary qualities displayed by both these groups by far exceeded the equipment of Defoe in these respects these joint journalistic efforts never succeeded in following continuously the true path of development, which leads to our modern newspapers. The same may be said of two other celebrities Henry Fielding in the Champion and True Patriot, both Whig organs and of Johnson in the Rambler. In fact the only resemblance of the latter to a newspaper was that it appeared at regular intervals and had the general wish of the author to support Church and State, as they were understood by the Tory party.

With the well-known names of Wilkes, rake, demagogue and editor of the North Britain (1762–3) and Woodfall, editor of the Public Advertiser and publisher of the famous Letters of Junius we come nearer still to the modern spirit. In both these cases the original example of Defoe is followed of seeking for public support through the press against the power and authority of government and thereby of establishing the great English principle of its real and practical independence. The example and success of Junius has also to my mind had a far-reaching effect on our newspaper habits in helping to extend the practice of anonymity, which has contributed so powerfully to the wealth and influence of our leading organs. Finally with Cobbett, soldier, agitator and editor of the Weekly Political Register (1802–35) we come to the end of the predominantly personal note in English journalism, which started with Defoe. In many respects Cobbett strongly resembled the father of English journalism especially in his directness, ruggedness and fertility. But he was quite incapable of reaching the immortal heights, which Defoe touched more than once. Though he was too independent to stoop to deceit, he was capable of changing sides quite honestly, an inconsistency of which in his heart Defoe never was guilty.