Part 10

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 [L]5 a year for a daily paper, and [L]2 10s. a year for an evening paper. The booksellers in 1770 advertised a charge of [L]4 a year for a daily paper, and [L]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 1/2d. 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 1/2d. 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 1-1/2d. a copy, in 1789 to 2d., in 1794 to 2-1/2d., 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 1/2d., which was in effect providing for the transmission of newspapers by post at the uniform rate of 1/2d., 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 1-1/2d. 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 1/2d. a copy. In 1869 the question was again raised in Parliament. A resolution was moved in favour of an inland rate of 1/2d. for 2 ounces on printed matter, and a postage of 1/2d. 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 1/2d. 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.