kSwSBssb 
 
 HSSp 
 
 
 '■;••. :.":V ; ^*-'- 
 
 — y\ 
 
 ■KhH9 
 
 •PTtomJ 
 
 ■* ' v SUB 
 
 
FIFTH EDITION. 
 
 
 
 
 
 NEWSPAPERS 
 
 and their 
 
 MILLIONAIRES 
 
 WITH SOME 
 
 FURTHER MEDITATIONS 
 ABOUT US 
 
 By 
 VISCOUNT NORTHCLIFFE 
 
 LONDON 
 1922 
 
 "Price 3</. 
 
 
 
 
NEWSPAPERS 
 
 AND THEIR 
 
 MILLIONAIRES, 
 
 WITH SOME FURTHER MEDITATIONS 
 
 ABOUT US 
 
 By VISCOUNT NORTHCLIFFB 
 
 I shall be glad if everyone, before reading this, will realize that 
 the wages question in metropolitan daily newspaper offices in no way 
 resembles the wages situation in Agriculture, the Mines, the Mills, the Rail- 
 ways, the Shipyards, the Ships, the Engineering shops and factories 
 generally. 
 
 The London daily newspapers are controlled by a number of very rich 
 people who are merely competing with each other , and not with foreigners as 
 are our coal -owners, shipbuilders, and engineers. 
 
 Good wages of printers of daily newspapers do not mean loss of trade to 
 Great Britain, but low wages mean the disappearance of skilled British 
 printers to the United States, where, I regret to say, I have met hundreds of 
 them. 
 
E 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 VERY now and then the question of the ownership of newspapers becomes 
 a topic of public discussion, and doubtless new legislation is required 
 in Britain. 
 
 There are countries in which wise legislation has been enacted to make the 
 actual ownership of all newspapers a public matter, so that, for example, Bolshevik 
 and Japanese propaganda might be rendered more difficult. There are countries 
 in which it is compulsory to reveal the actual sale of every newspaper and publication 
 inviting advertisements. 
 
 In some parts of our Dominions it is compulsory to publish the name of the 
 writer of every political article during a campaign. A stupid rule, in my opinion, 
 because in The Times, for instance, there is often a single leading article by at least 
 five men, each of whom contributes his specialist part. 
 
 In whatever part of the world you travel you find the newspaper an increasing 
 topic, though its proud position is about to be challenged by broadcast wireless. 
 I lived in a house on my world tour where they had loud-speaking broadcast wireless. 
 t do not like it — perhaps because I am a newspaper owner. 
 
 Broadcast wireless means that every one of you who reads this article will one 
 day, I fear, be able to subscribe to a news agency and get all your sporting, financial, 
 political, and general news spoken in any room you choose in your home by wireless 
 telephone. I have been using the wireless telephone for a couple of years, but do 
 not particularly care for it. It is improving, but even now the sound is often like 
 that of the last-century gramophones. There are many atmospheric interruptions, 
 and occasionally blank silences of hours. 
 
 None the less the wireless telephone, which the Americans have already reduced 
 to a small portable box not much larger than a Kodak — the Radiophone — is used 
 in the United States and Canada on a scale we know only by hearsay. 
 
 I asked some American friends who used the Radiophone how they liked it 
 compared with the newspaper. 
 
 They said : " What we chiefly like is that our children every evening get a 
 spoken bedtime story by wireless. What we do not like are the interruptions. And 
 the ladies of the household say they cannot manage without the advertisements, 
 which only the newspaper supplies." 
 
 507273 
 
.'■.....'••.,- ■ 
 
 NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 I believe that eventually the spread of the Radiophone will affect evening 
 newspapers. Some American evening newspapers broadcast news from their own 
 offices, thus hoping to keep the goodwill of their subscribers. I cannot ascertain 
 whether this means a loss of readers or gain, and, after all, the struggle of newspapers 
 has been for readers since the beginning of newspapers. 
 
 The question of newspaper ownership in Great Britain has again come to the 
 fore by the action of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, and in particular by 
 that of the Morning Post in a recent issue. 
 
 There were great discussions about newspaper ownership in the 'sixties of 
 last century, when financiers, including the famous Albert Grant, got hold of a 
 good many of them. In the early 'eighties there was a panic in Fleet Street about 
 the arrival of the late Mr. Carnegie, who threatened to buy up the British Press 
 and burned his fingers badly in the process. 
 
 I remember writing for one of his '* Echoes," as they were called, when leading 
 articles were written in London, cast into stereotype form, sent down by train to 
 his provincial " Echoes," and sawn into various lengths, according to the requirements 
 of the paper. His was the Ironmaster's view. 
 
 At about the same time other capitalists came on the scene. We journalists 
 have no objection whatever to capitalists owning newspapers and thus creating 
 employment. But I object to being a member of a Combination in which capitalists 
 ignorant of Fleet Street dictate terms to those who have spent their lives trying 
 to understand the complex questions of a newspaper. 
 
 ****** 
 
 This present contribution to the controversy arose in the following manner : — 
 ****** 
 
 I was taking a walk one morning with my little Cocker spaniel, " Pretty," when 
 she was nearly run over, owing to her inexperience, by a Ford motor-car belonging 
 to the Morning Post. Out of the car nimbly stepped a young man with a 
 brush, a pot of paste, and a placard. On the placard I read " Lord Northcliffe 
 and his Colleagues." 
 
 " That is very interesting," I thought. " The Morning Post very often writes 
 about Lord Northcliffe ; now the public will know something about my colleagues." 
 Putting my little dog under-my arm, I entered the shop to which the placard had been 
 attached and purchased the paper. 
 
 When I opened the paper I was, like many others, disappointed. Although the 
 placard was to be found in every street in the south of England there was nothing 
 about my colleagues. 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 There was merely the same list of newspapers and controversial matter as had 
 appeared elsewhere, though in heavy type. 
 
 The prominence of that list made me realise for the first time that behind every 
 single London daily newspaper, with the possible exception of some sporting journals 
 and a Labour publication, of which I know nothing, there is a multi-millionaire, a 
 millionaire, or a very wealthy colleague, a Shipping King, a Cotton-waste King, 
 Coal Kings, an Oil King, and the rest of them. 
 
 As I motored about during the day I pondered why the Morning Post should 
 issue this nice advertisement of me and omit every reference to my colleagues. 
 
 The ways of the Morning Post are delightfully feminine — and no one knows 
 much about feminine things. None the less, it has to be considered, and is the only 
 newspaper in the world directed, and ably directed, by a woman. 
 
 The situation is just this : While I was travelling round the world, trying to 
 find out what the Japanese are doing and where best our surplus population should 
 emigrate, there arose a movement, of which I was not informed, for the reduction 
 of the wages of printers of metropolitan daily newspapers. 
 
 On my return to Europe I heard about the matter. I then set about making 
 inquiries as to the financial condition of the public Press and the status of the printers 
 themselves. As a result I let it be known that, on the newspapers with which I 
 am concerned, there would be no reduction in wages. 
 
 In the last thirty years the status of the British printer has greatly improved. 
 He is one of the most highly skilled craftsmen we have. He is subject to a daily 
 strain that few of my readers understand. I rejoice at his better state. 
 
 My action was fiercely resented in a certain quarter. A representative of one 
 of the Colleagues referred to came to see me to remonstrate. He said : " The wages 
 are preposterous. Some of these men have motor-cycles and sidecars ; more than 
 one of them drives a motor-car." 
 
 " Why shouldn't they ? " I replied. " Our men are at least as skilled as the 
 American and other foreign workers. If American printers are able to own Fords 
 why shouldn't ours ? British newspapers are just as prosperous as at any time in 
 their history." 
 
 The replies were vague and unsatisfactory. 
 
 7 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 " My contention," I continued, " is that if we wish to retain the best skilled 
 labour we have in this country we must pay it properly. There are, I regret to say, 
 more than enough skilled British mechanics in the United States. I never visit 
 an American newspaper office without being introduced to half a dozen of them, 
 and none of them comes back." 
 
 " But," he continued, " you are a member of the Newspaper Proprietors 
 Association, and one of your representatives joined with the others in the reduction 
 of wages movement." 
 
 I said that he, the mysterious Mr. X referred to, might have troubled to send 
 me a wireless before he took a step involving the welfare and home comforts of 
 hundreds of families. He is young and he has not travelled much as yet. 
 
 " Then," continued my colleague, " there are the unskilled workers who are always 
 threatening us and the newsagents." 
 
 " That is a different matter," I said. " They may be getting more money 
 than they deserve. If they are naughty we shall have to clout them as they have 
 been clouted elsewhere, in Paris and New York, with the same result every time, 
 but I have not had time to investigate the position." 
 
 " Then there are those who wish to interfere with the internal organisation 
 of newspapers and even with their contents." 
 
 I read him the following letter I wrote to one of my employees, a Mr. Isaacs 
 mot a Jew). Mr. Isaacs had had the impudence to attempt to interfere with the 
 editorial policy of The Daily Mail during the railway strike. That letter was as 
 follows : 
 
 " I hope you will understand that I have no intention of allowing my 
 newspapers to be influenced in this or any other matter by anyone. I am 
 entirely satisfied with the attitude of my journals towards this national 
 calamity (the railway strike of 1919), and rather than be dictated to by anyone, 
 or any body of men, I will stop the publication of these newspapers, and, in 
 view of your letter, I have so informed the Newspaper Proprietors' Association." 
 
 " But surely you do not propose to break with the Newspaper Proprietors' 
 Association ? " 
 
 " Indeed I do," I replied. " I have only a few votes in it, and can be swamped 
 at any time by the rest of my colleagues. I do not propose that they should 
 interfere with my affairs, and equally I have no desire to be mixed up with theirs." 
 
 8 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 And so, although it is not a matter of the importance given to it by practically 
 every newspaper in the country (except our wise friend, Lord Beaverbrook), my 
 newspapers have withdrawn from the combination of the Colleagues. 
 
 As there is likely to be long, and I have no doubt acrimonious, controversy as to 
 whether a printer ought or ought not to own a sidecar, I propose giving the public 
 a little information about the capacity of my colleagues in return for the immense 
 amount of information my colleagues have for thirty years given about me. 
 
 Among the most curious collections I have seen is one of what is called 
 Northcliffeana, made by an assiduous collector of newspaper clippings about 
 myself and one or two other public men. 
 
 There are eight volumes of cuttings from the Daily News all about myself. 
 I wonder if Mr. Cadbury has ever realised the accumulation of most un-Quakerly 
 references to myself which have appeared in his sporting and other publications. 
 
 Well, the Cadburys are the chocolate millionaires behind the Daily News and 
 Star, and their printers should be well able to afford sidecars. They have a bounding 
 circulation again, I notice. 
 
 Lord Burnham, whose fine work for the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, 
 along with my friend Lord Riddell, during the war secured him a well-deserved step 
 in the Peerage, neither now nor at any other time has advocated low wages for 
 printers. Since his grandfather's time the Daily Telegraph has always been a happy 
 family. I like the Daily Telegraph, perhaps because — although I have been in 
 strong rivalry for many years — no unkind reference to myself has ever appeared. 
 It has, on the other hand, gone out of its way on many occasions to say nice things, 
 and I not unnaturally rejoice at the prosperity of what is probably the soundest 
 '* property " of its kind in the world. 
 
 Lord Burnham is the millionaire behind that newspaper, and his millions have 
 not spoiled him. 
 
 Another kind of millionaire by inheritance is Sir Edward Hulton, the son of a 
 printer, and therefore well acquainted with the private lives of printers. I do not 
 know whether he is in the wages reduction movement, but if he is he should not be. 
 I do not say it because his newspapers hardly ever avoid introducing an oblique 
 hostile reference to myself or my publications, or to France, or because his Evening 
 Standard masks some curious publications in Manchester, but he can have no excuse 
 to belong to any wages reduction movement. 
 
 9 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND TH££R MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 He has so often referred to myself that I am not being personal when I say that 
 his racing establishment is one of the most perfect and costly in the country. As to 
 his French attitude and other matters, more on another day. 
 
 A new Colleague — a welcome one — is Lord Beaverbrook, whose career is a credit 
 to Canada. It is a fact, as I have pointed out before, that whereas the United States 
 is exporting farmers to Canada, Canada is exporting heads of great businesses to the 
 United States. It is a happy accident of fortune that Lord Beaverbrook should have 
 come to England. I look forward to the day when the young Australians and New 
 Zealanders who are, I am sorry to say, also going to the United States, will come here, 
 to the Motherland, where there is plenty of opportunity for their activity. Would 
 that more came to our great schools and universities 1 
 
 Beaverbrook is not of the wage-reducing type, and his millions have been 
 earned by brains and what the Canadians possess to the full — initiative. 
 
 Many people predict a Beaverbrook-Hulton " merger," which would be an 
 extremely good thing for the tone of some of the Hulton publications. 
 
 As to the Daily Chronicle, which is in the list printed by the Morning Post, 
 it is a political organ supported by millionaires, and millionaires who support political 
 organs should not be, and in this case are not, mean to workpeople. 
 
 Next in the list I find the Daily Graphic — a better paper than most people are 
 aware. Behind it is the great Berry fortune. The Berrys are buying up Fleet 
 Street and its environs. I have met one of them, and he left upon me no 
 impressions of a wage-cutter. 
 
 Coming to the Westminster Gazette — my friend Lord Cowdray's toy — a few weeks 
 ago I was dining with the Chief Justice of Ceylon in his charming bungalow high up 
 in the Highlands of Newara Eliya. We were talking over things, men, and politics 
 at home, and he said, "lam going to stand myself the luxury of a year of Alfred 
 Spender. I have sent my subscription to the Westminster Gazette, which is going to 
 be a morning newspaper." 
 
 I do not know whether the subscription arrived — Cowdray can no doubt find 
 out — but I am afraid the Chief Justice is getting very little Spender. 
 
 I told Lord Cowdray (Sir Weetman Pearson) the other day that his newspaper 
 is about as good as my first oil well and pipe-line establishment would be. Looking 
 at it reminds me of a man playing golf for the first time. If Cowdray would go 
 
 10 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 down to the office and use a little of his foresight and great sense of humour he 
 might one day be able to approach the inevitable, the net sale certificate, to which all 
 of us have to come as advertising becomes more scientific. 
 
 There are one or two Sunday and sporting papers of which I know nothing. 
 But for the whole of the rest in the list issued in reply to the mysterious Mr. X 
 there is a millionaire, and sometimes several, in the background, with the solitary 
 exception of the Daily Herald. 
 
 As to evening papers, all the four London papers have millionaires behind 
 them. One of them (not me, please) is said to be worth fourteen millions. 
 
 I am sure if the millionaires will go and look at the production of their news- 
 papers they will not want to reduce wages. The strain on the editorial and 
 mechanical staffs is about as much as human beings can bear. I have done some 
 of the work myself. I know. 
 
 As to the Daily Herald, I see that it belongs to this combination. They will no 
 doubt remain in it. They will, like me, do just as they choose. 
 
 I think it curious that in Britain, with a population eight times that of Australia, 
 our workers cannot produce a daily Labour newspaper. The reason is a very simple 
 one. 
 
 Take the Daily World, of Hobart, for example. That is no mere small 
 propaganda sheet filled with racing tips and crankisms. Both in Hobart and in 
 Brisbane I find that the general public read the Labour dailies for the simple reason 
 that they provide as good a home and foreign news service as the so-called capitalist 
 organs. 
 
 I visited the offices of the Daily World and found them sensible newspaper 
 producers with strong Labour views which I respected. Their first object was to 
 get readers and advertisements. I found no undignified howling for a " rally " 
 or a dole. Labour had appointed a first-rate editor, Mr. Grey, not a cranky amateur. 
 If you buy the Daily World you need buy no other newspaper. If you buy the 
 Daily Herald and want the news, you must buy another newspaper. 
 
 The other newspapers in the list belong to my brother Rothermere, who is not 
 at all inclined to reduce wages, and is as determined as I am not to be dictated to 
 by extremists of the Labour Party, who are just as stupid as the extremists of the 
 Tory or any other party. 
 
 Of the provincial Press it may be stated that the morning papers are perhaps 
 not as prosperous as they were. But the provincial evening newspapers have rarely, 
 I am told, known such net sales and such cheap paper. 
 
 II 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 Some of the provincial papers, like some of the London newspapers, are main- 
 tained by wealthy men for the purpose of political and social advancement. There 
 is nothing wrong in that. But there is something wrong in doing it at the expense 
 
 of the comfort of the workers and their wives. 
 
 * * * * * * 
 
 I did not think that my late colleagues of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association 
 
 would be so unwise as to enter upon a public controversy on the question of the 
 
 wages of newspaper workers, but now that they have started it they will no doubt 
 
 continue, and it will spread to other branches of the printing trade, such as, for 
 
 example, the general printers. 
 
 Here an entirely different state of affairs prevails. Our daily newspapers are, 
 as a matter of fact, corporations or individuals competing only with each other in 
 Great Britain. The general printer has to compete with excellent Dutch and other 
 printers. I was sorry to notice, when travelling, that a number of English publications 
 have Dutch imprints. The workers ought to look into this matter. 
 
 The general printer has an easy life. He has none of the rush and tension of 
 the linotypist, the men in the composing-rooms and foundry or machine-room of 
 a daily newspaper, and especially of an evening newspaper. 
 
 If the printers are wise they will see that this kind of work, in which we compete 
 
 with foreigners — and there is going to be a great deal of it — should be performed 
 
 by members of their craft unable to stand the strain of the daily newspaper life 
 
 and ready to accept lower wages and easier conditions. Otherwise that kind of 
 
 printing will leave England. 
 
 ****** 
 
 As this controversy advances I strongly advise the readers and the workers 
 to investigate that pompous phrase " economic unsoundness." 
 
 I notice that a correspondent of The Times the other day pointed out that 
 this phrase was used by a provincial newspaper which was charging twopence for 
 a penny paper and circulating among its shareholders a balance-sheet showing 
 extraordinary profits. I have the balance-sheet. 
 
 In the afternoon I motored down to Eton to see some boys. I found that the 
 whole place was alive and the road thereto with " Lord Northcliffe and his Colleagues." 
 
 One boy said to me: " Nunkie, we bought the Post this morning because we 
 thought we should find something about you in it, and there was nothing." 
 
 " Stick to the family organs, my boy," I replied as I tipped him farewell. 
 
 " You will find it all in the Daily Mail on Monday. We -do not issue misleading 
 
 contents bills." 
 
 ****** 
 
 There is no case for a reduction in the wages of our daily printers, and as regards 
 
 what are called the Northcliffe journals there will be none. 
 
 12 
 
THE MINDS BEHIND THE 
 LONDON DAILY NEWSPAPERS 
 
 VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE, 
 
 Proprietor of the "Daily Mirror" 
 
 and many leading provincial and 
 
 Scottish organs* 
 
 COUNTESS BAT HURST, 
 Controller of the "Morning Post." 
 
THE MINDS BEHIiND THE 
 LONDON DAILY NEWSPAPERS 
 
 Viscount Burnham 
 " Daily Telegraph 
 
 Lord Beaverbrook 
 " Daily Express " 
 
 Sir Edward Hulton, Bart 
 Evening Standard " and other journals 
 
 Lord Inverforth 
 
 " Daily Chronicle " 
 
THE MINDS BEHIND THE 
 LONDON DAILY NEWSPAPERS 
 
 Viscount Cowdray 
 Westminster Gazette ' 
 
 Sir William Ewert Berry, Bart 
 
 " Daily Graphic " 
 
 Sir John Leigh, Bart 
 "Pall Mall Gazette" 
 
 Viscount Northcliffe 
 
 The Times," "Daily Mail." " Evening News 
 
THE MINDS BEHIND THE 
 LONDON DAILY NEWSPAPERS 
 
 MR. CADBURY. 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 WHEN I had delivered myself of the foregoing, I thought no more of it till 
 there began to arrive at Printing House Square, Carmelite House, The 
 Fleetway House, and at my various homes, a mass of letters, grateful, 
 argumentative, suggestive, informative, and abusive — the abusive ones anonymous. 
 
 Then began a few timorous replies from newspapers — very, very timorous, 
 especially from Sir Edward Hulton, who, as I said the other day, has assailed me as 
 assiduously as he assails France. 
 
 Some of the Press cuttings from the provinces spoke gloomily of Press monopolies 
 ■ — a very old bogey. 
 
 When John Walter the Second boasted that the sale of The Times equalled that 
 of all the Press in London, he was called the Monopolist. Let dreary prophets of 
 Press Monopolists take comfort by looking at the provincial evening Press — the 
 wonderful evening newspapers of Glasgow, Edinburgh (alas ! the old independent 
 Edinburgh Evening News), Dundee, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, York, Leeds, 
 Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Plymouth, Portsmouth, East 
 Anglia, and the rest. 
 
 Moreover, provincial morning papers are being injured by metropolitan com- 
 petition, and will be more and more hurt when aeroplane delivery becomes a certainty 
 rather than a costly and capricious joke. But, as I have hinted, provincial evening 
 journals — some of which, as in the United States, are immensely profitable — are 
 gaining ground every day and in every way. No London newspaper is better than the 
 Evening News of Manchester, the Evening News of Glasgow, or the Yorkshire Evening 
 Post (whose borrowings — may I tell it ? — from my newspapers are forming the 
 subject of a little examination at the moment.) 
 
 But provincial morning newspapers, even those published close to London, can 
 give the metropolitan Press a most unpleasant time. That dreadful Birmingham 
 Daily Post is sold at the same price as my Daily Mail, and is larger. It has an un- 
 pleasant way of getting all the advertising. It follows up a successful morning's 
 work by issuing one of the brightest sheets in Great Britain, the Birmingham Mail. 
 
 So much for the cry of " Press Monopolists " from London. 
 
 The correspondence swelled by every post, but until I met Lord Cowdray 
 (Sir Weetman Pearson), who like Lord Inchcape (Sir James Mackay), is, in my 
 opinion, one of the greatest modern British pioneers, I had not come into personal 
 contact with anyone, outside my small circle, who had read my article. 
 
 13 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 Friend Cowdray twitted me agreeably about my little sally, of which this is a 
 further chapter. We are going for a walk and a cigar one of these mornings on 
 Hampstead Heath. I shall not talk about his Westminster. 
 
 Cowdray is known in the United States as the man who gave the Standard Oil 
 Company " the biggest shake-up in its little life." You may also remember that 
 when the Americans failed to make the tunnels under the East River in New York 
 they called for Cowdray, who got clear through to the other side, but at the risk of 
 his life. It is his rule never to give a workman a dangerous task unless he has essayed 
 it himself. 
 
 The making of those wonderful tunnels is a story I cannot tell yet, for I find it 
 difficult to get Cowdray to talk of it. But I happen to know an American who 
 worked under water with him, and he has promised to give me the narrative. 
 
 When I look at his wasteful Westminster Gazette, its ignorance, provincialism, 
 extravagance, mismanagement, and muddle written all over it, and no Alfred 
 Spender, I cannot in any way connect Cowdray with it. 
 
 I shall not refer to the Westminster again, except to say that, coming back from 
 my world tour, I very much missed the old Westminster. 
 
 It was always a " kept " paper. For years it passed from one millionaire to 
 another, and swallowed money in buckets. 'Twas amusing to watch the records of 
 each new proprietor's wife's entertainments in their turn. But the old Westminster 
 had a cachet of its own, and for the life of me I cannot understand why, having got 
 one of the few men who know how to edit a daily political newspaper, Mr. Alfred 
 Spender, they did not grapple him to their hearts with hooks of steel. 
 
 In the collection of Northcliffeana, referred to in Chapter One, I was shown 
 two volumes of criticisms, cartoons, and quips, at my expense, from the old 
 Westminster, good natured for the most part. 
 
 14 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 I OBSERVE in my examination of the letters and newspaper cuttings which 
 this controversy has produced, a statement in a favourite, but not very well- 
 known weekly review, the New Statesman, that I once offered Mr. Spender 
 the editorship of The Times. 
 
 That is not true. I did once say to a well known public man on the Liberal 
 side that, in my opinion, Mr. Spender was one of the very few men who could edit 
 The Times, adding that his treatment by the Liberal Party, and especially by Mr. 
 Asquith, was no encouragement to young political Liberal journalists. In my 
 opinion Mr. Asquith has been most ungrateful to him. 
 
 Is it too late for the Liberal Party to recognise eminent journalistic service ? 
 Is there not a vacant Directorship of the Suez Canal, such as the Earl of Balfour 
 secured for his secretary, my friend Sir Ian Malcolm ? I was told when I was at 
 Suez that there is such a vacant directorship. 
 
 One response to the article was an amusing dialogue between Sir William Berry 
 and Lord Beaverbrook, at a meeting of newsagents, in which they quite exaggerated 
 the power of the newsagents, and wept copiously, but I am sure merrily, over the 
 dreadful attenuation of the Beaverbrook and Berry millions. I do not know which 
 is the wealthier of the two, Lord Beaverbrook or Sir William. They are enormously 
 rich ; and humorous withal, unlike most people with too much money. 
 
 There are alarming rumours in Fleet Street of a tremendously rich Berry some- 
 where down in Wales. Perhaps he is the gentleman who is constantly offering, 
 through a well-known firm of lawyers, ten million pounds to buy my control of 
 certain newspapers. I wonder ! 
 
 Well, as for these millionaire amateurs, the more the merrier. With a fourteen- 
 million pound baronet behind the Pall Mall Gazette, with whose identity I was 
 unacquainted when I wrote the first chapter — Sir John Leigh — and a Berry, a great 
 big Berry, looming down there in Wales, there is obviously plenty of employment 
 for printers and paper-makers in the future, though some of our amateurs buy 
 foreign paper and thus rob the British paper-maker of his due. 
 
 One or two of these amateurs have been to see me at various times. There 
 was the Lancashire millionaire who started — and wrecked — the now-forgotten 
 Tribune. 
 
 15 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 I gave him, as a result of experience in several parts of the world, honest 
 information as to the size of his page. I heard afterwards that he thought I was 
 actuated by fear of opposition, and so he ordered machinery a quarter of a century 
 out of date for the size of its pages ! 
 
 Another enormously rich amateur came to see me at the moment when I had 
 obtained control of The Times ; a shrewd, clever financier, who would have skinned 
 me alive on the Stock Exchange more easily than I could have skinned him in Fleet 
 Street. He wanted to buy The Times. 
 
 I was placed in a most invidious position, because, as a matter of fact, unknown 
 to anyone, I had for some time been in control of The Times, but owing to preoccu- 
 pation in Newfoundland I was unable to attend to the matter. 
 
 He spoke with a certain accent, and I said to him : " What do you want to 
 control The Times for ? Are you a pro-German ? " 
 
 He replied : " No, I am not a pro-German, but I think every step should 
 be taken to promote harmonious relations with Germany and with Japan." 
 
 " Do you object to the policy of The Times ? " 
 
 " Very much. It is affecting Anglo-German business." 
 
 " Would you propose changing The Times ? " I asked. 
 
 " Oh, yes," he replied. " It must be changed, or it will die. I have got all 
 the particulars from my lawyers, and it is now selling fewer than thirty thousand 
 copies a day [which was almost true]. There are great internal struggles." [Which 
 had been true.] 
 
 Then he said : " What I came to see you for, Lord Northcliffe, was to ask 
 you how these things are managed. It seems to me that a newspaper must be a 
 kind of manufacturing business. Who buys the paper and ink, for example ? Is 
 it the editor ? Who looks after the accounts ? " 
 
 I replied : " So far as I know, The Times accounts are kept by Mr. Moberly 
 Bell in a penny note-book which he keeps at home." [Which was true.] 
 
 " Well, well, well I " he said. " It's a funny business, and I shall not offer 
 more than a preliminary deposit of £180,000." To which I replied, quite truly : 
 " I am afraid you will not get it." 
 
 16 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE next person with whom I discussed the matter was an old journalist 
 with a very long memory. 
 
 He said : " These battles of millionaires in Fleet Street, which have 
 existed as long as I remember, though never so acutety as at present, always end 
 in the failing spirits of the amateurs. And how very shy some of them are, by 
 the way, of net sale certificates ! I wonder how many amateurs old Mudford, 
 of the Standard downed?" " The commodity millionaires in journalism are not 
 new features," he continued ; " don't you remember Mustard Kings, Patent Medicine 
 Kings, Mineral Water Kings — one of them a German — all having a flutter in Ink 
 Street ? " 
 
 I remember talking over this particular matter with the late Lord Glenesk — 
 always kind to me — whom my father knew in his own earliest days. Glenesk 
 was not only a first-rate conductor of a newspaper, one who accomplished many 
 great news " exclusives," but also perhaps the best Paris correspondent a newspaper 
 ever had, excepting only the great De Blowitz and Laurence Oliphant. Glenesk 
 was anxious about the future of journalism towards his latter days, but not on 
 account of the golden amateurs. He left a brilliant boy, Oliver, and little did people 
 think at the time of Oliver's unexpected and always lamented passing that the 
 Morning Post would wax fatter under the direction of his gifted daughter than at 
 any time in its long and honourable career. But it is true. 
 ****** 
 
 I said to the old journalist (let me call him Senex) : " Who is the most powerful 
 woman in England, outside the Royal Family ? " 
 
 " Lady Astor, M.P., of course ! " he said. 
 
 " Lady Astor ! " I replied ; " it is true that she controls the Observer, but in 
 my opinion, Senex, the most powerful woman in England without exception — other 
 than Royalty — is Lady Bathurst, the beautiful and accomplished director of 
 the Morning Post. You may not always agree with her methods and policy ; 
 you may not always agree with the enormous headlines, but you will admit that, 
 right or wrong, the Morning Post is bright, consistent, sometimes flighty, but always 
 English." 
 
 Senex, at first surprised by the suggestion, agreed with me, as will every thinking 
 person. 
 
 Knowing the internal organisation of the Morning Post — for every newspaper 
 knows the internal organisation of every other newspaper, just as every army knows 
 the organisation of every other army — I know that this paper is produced by the 
 
 17 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 genius of a woman, assisted by just two really capable men. If she were living in 
 America her name would ring from one end of the Continent to another, and be 
 hurled at Great Britain as a sign of American national superiority. 
 
 We talked about the Daily Herald. " There have been more Labour papers 
 started in Fleet Street than you seem to remember," said Senex ; " none of them 
 has ever published news, as you truly said of the Daily Herald." 
 
 I replied : " What baffles me is the fact that Australian and even German 
 Labour knows how to produce a newspaper with news in it, but British Labour 
 seems to think that it can force people to buy propaganda without news." 
 
 " Do you think London the right place for a Labour newspaper ? " he asked. 
 
 " No," I replied, " I do not. Organised Labour commenced in the north of 
 England, and that is where Labour is. I see that the Daily Herald is now being sold 
 at what is known as the fatal price — twopence. Twopence is no price, as I found 
 when I had The Times at twopence. 
 
 " The price of newspapers is a mysterious factor in their success. It is 
 iotorious that both the Daily Telegraph and The Times have bounded up by the 
 mere reduction of their price to three-halfpence. The Times alone has already 
 gathered some 70,000 new purchasers (net) per diem since I returned from my 
 world tour, and I believe that the Daily Telegraph has also gained an immense 
 number of readers. The equivalent of the British three-halfpence, the American 
 three cents, the French three sous is, for some psychological reason I am unable 
 to explain, the price of successful newspapers in many parts of the world." 
 
 Senex asked me why. 
 
 " I do not know why," I replied, " but I know it is so. The newspaper is an 
 enigma. I learn something about newspapers every day that I did not know the 
 day before, and I have been studying newspapers in almost every part of the world 
 since I was a boy." 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 IT is a curious fact, but it is a fact, that most of these amateur millionaires 
 are anti-French. That is one of those things no fella can understand, as 
 Lord Dundreary said. Old Mr. Cadbury, whose advice was that we should 
 allow Germany to overrun Belgium and France (the latter, incidentally, the greatest 
 rival of the British chocolate trade, with its Chocolat Menier), has been always 
 anti-French. He was anti-French before the war. He had to stop during the war, 
 but he is anti-French again now. 
 
 What is this old man like ? 
 
 18 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 Well, I happen to have had a talk with him, and a very curious conversation 
 it was. 
 
 A good many years ago he asked me if I would, some time when passing 
 through Birmingham, come and see him. The invitation was pressed again 
 and again. It happened shortly that I was going through Birmingham on one of 
 my regular visits to Manchester. 
 
 I was met at New Street Station by a nice provincial brougham, with sleek 
 horse, and a young Cadbury ; driven some distance to a pleasant suburb and a large 
 provincial house, such as you see outside Pittsburg or Manchester. 
 
 A great feast had been spread. My companion and I could not for the life of us 
 imagine why Mr. Cadbury should want to see us. My point of view is so different 
 from his, and known to be different, that I was "intrigued," as the newspapers 
 keep on saying now that they have finished with " adumbrating," at this 
 mysterious invitation. 
 
 Old Mr. Cadbury is a nervous man — not, at any rate, at that time, the vindictive 
 kind of old gentleman you would imagine after reading the Daily News for a few years. 
 
 We got through the meal somehow and after a long and awkward silence he 
 said nervously : " I have asked you here because we do not like the tone of the 
 Birmingham papers. They print all kinds of horrible things and horse racing, and 
 we think the high tone of the Press as important to this city as the quality of its 
 water supply." "We want a new Birmingham paper," added the distinguished 
 member of the Society of Friends. 
 
 " But," I said, " Mr. Cadbury, let me say at once that I have no intention of 
 joining you in any newspaper enterprise." 
 
 He replied : " I will supply the capital ; I will interfere with you in no way what- 
 ever. I notice that your newspapers are singularly free from crime and vice." 
 
 " But," I retorted, " I am not a Pacifist, and unfortunately I believe that we shall\ 
 one day be at war with Germany. I know about the Germans. I believe that the_j 
 only salvation of the world is an Anglo-American-French alliance." 
 
 " I do not care what you say on these subjects if the paper can do something 
 to purify the Press of Birmingham," he answered. 
 
 A somewhat awkward interview ended and my companion and I returned to 
 New Street puzzled and, as Garvin is fond of saying, " bemused." 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SINCE I wrote the above I have received more and more letters — some asking 
 about my little Cocker spaniel, Pretty, who was nearly run over by a 
 Morning Post Ford delivery waggon. One lady writes : " Has she 
 recovered from the shock, poor little dear ? " Pretty had no shock. The person 
 who had some little shock was myself when I saw all round London, and especially 
 round my homes, the Morning Post placard, " Lord Northcliffe and his Colleagues." 
 
 19 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 A good many folk think that I have been too patient under the abuse I have 
 received from these Colleagues for the past many years. But I mind what Mr. 
 Moberly Bell said to me when he induced me to get him out of his trouble at Printing 
 House Square. He had a little printed list, which may still be in existence, of 
 frightful words used about The Times. 
 
 He said, showing me the penny memorandum book in which he kept the daily 
 circulation : " We are suffering from lack of abuse. Look at that list which has 
 been compiled since 1840, seven years before John Walter the Second died. Look 
 at it. There were personal reflections on the morality of Mr. Walter ; there were 
 statements that we filled up coachloads of The Times, sent them down to Brighton, 
 and dumped them into the sea at night in order to maintain the boast that we sold 
 more papers than any other paper in London. We were accused of financial trickery, 
 of being in the pocket of every politician since 1785. And look at this : One 
 paper actually called us ' the bloody old Times.' " 
 
 " Do not worry about lack of abuse, Mr. Bell," I said. " When I have time 
 to reveal my identity as controller of The Times you will get all the abuse you 
 want." He lived to see my prophecy come true. 
 
 Bell died in his chair at Printing House Square, and I should like to say that 
 there is no doubt that there was one moment in the history of The Times when he 
 saved its life. 
 
 So far, all has been about myself and my colleagues by myself. There follows 
 something from Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb, in their journal the New Statesman. I 
 print it at length because, though unfavourable to me, it does agree that we 
 working journalists have a right to be dissociated from the amateur millionaires 
 who are seeking titles and social advancement by the old road of Fleet Street. 
 
 I am glad to see that the writer specifically excepts my friend Beaverbrook from 
 among the amateur millionaires. He works as hard as I do. I hope he will not 
 mind my saying that I very much doubt the genuineness of the grief exhibited by 
 him and Sir William Berry at the newsagents' banquet over their shockingly over- 
 drawn banking accounts. Beaverbrook is quite unlike Lord Inverforth or Mr. 
 Cadbury or Sir John Leigh. He is a worker in his newspapers, and the fine position 
 they are gaining is not due to Millions but to Mind. 
 
 Senex asked me to say something about the sharks that assemble round these 
 millionaires when the glad news reaches Fleet Street that another mug is coming. 
 
 Well, I will reserve those remarks for my forthcoming magnum opus, 
 "MONSTERS OF THE FLEET STREET DEEP." 
 
 20 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 INDEPENDENT REMARKS BY THE "NEW STATESMAN." 
 
 {Reprinted without permission from that often very well written organ of public opinion.) 
 
 Lord Northcliffe claims to be one of the very few newspaper proprietors who has 
 made his money out of newspapers, and the rest he regards as interlopers. He is not 
 prepared, he declares, to accept in his own business of producing newspapers the dicta- 
 tion of Shipping Kings and Cotton Kings and Coal and Cocoa and Oil Kings. The 
 argument as he states it is perhaps a little over-strained, but it is one which will arouse 
 a sympathetic echo in the heart of many a professional journalist who has no reason 
 to entertain a tender regard either for Lord Northcliffe or for his views. 
 
 On the whole, newspaper production is the most chaotic and inefficiently-organised 
 industry in the country, and journalism accordingly the most unsatisfactory of pro- 
 fessions, precisely on account of the fact to which Lord Northcliffe refers. It is largely 
 at the mercy of rich amateurs, who not only do not understand the business themselves, 
 but are so indifferent both to the financial and to the professional side of it that they 
 do not even take the trouble to secure competent professional advice, or to apply those 
 tests of efficiency which in their own business they would regard as indispensable. To 
 them a newspaper is a toy or possibly a political lever. It is true that in the hands of 
 the more careless and the more incompetent it is apt to become an extremely expensive 
 toy, with the result that newspapers are always dying or changing hands, but as there 
 is always a new " millionaire " ready to try his luck, this form of natural selection is not 
 very effective. 
 
 Very little is ever heard by the public about the inside working of the newspaper 
 world. Those who are fortunate say little for quite simple reasons, and those who are 
 not do not care to incur the suspicion of seeming to bewail their own misfortunes or 
 disappointments. There are, besides, so many stories which cannot be told. 
 
 Journalism is the only profession in which exceptionally able and successful and 
 experienced men are chronically subject to the direction of their inferiors. They are 
 forced to be the servants not of the public but of the (journalistically) ignorant million- 1/ 
 aire. Often they must scheme and flatter for the very right to exercise their own pro- 
 fessional judgment, knowing that pliancy counts for more than competence with people 
 who easily appreciate the one but have no standards by which to estimate the other. 
 
 There are a few old and well-established newspapers which have a professional 
 tradition, and to them of course these strictures do not apply ; but the section of the 
 Press which is subject to constant reincarnation is a very large one, and most journalist! 
 have experience of it 
 
 21 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 The outstanding merit of Lord Northcliffe is that he is himself a journalist. He has 
 always been a journalist, and he has proved that he knows his business. He is a million- 
 aire, but since he has made his millions out of newspapers directly controlled by himself, 
 he has acquired a moral right to bully or sack his employees which no ironmaster or 
 soapmaker who has purchased a newspaper can ever possess. That, from the journalist's 
 point of view, is a matter of infinite importance, for in it is involved the whole question 
 of the status of the profession. 
 
 One may dislike Lord Northcliffe 's methods or his standpoint and decline to work 
 for him, but his decisions and his orders are professional decisions and orders, which 
 no one who has accepted employment under him has any right to resent. 
 
 Lord Beaverbrook is in a somewhat similar position. He made his money, it is 
 true, in quite other enterprises, but he entered the newspaper world while still a young 
 man, and he became a journalist. He does not merely finance his newspapers ; he 
 runs them and devotes all his time to them. He too, therefore, as an editor-owner has 
 earned a certain right to expect his employees to bow to his views without feeling 
 humiliated. The merits of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are not here in question. 
 The point we wish to emphasise is that the existence of such papers, so controlled, tends 
 definitely to raise the status of the profession of journalism as such, just as the existence 
 of certain other papers, which we will not name — and with the views of which we are 
 in far closer agreement — tends equally definitely to lower that status. 
 
 The curse of journalism is the absentee proprietor, behind whose edicts there is no 
 authority save that of the purse, and who more often than not appoints as his mouthpiece 
 someone whose claims upon the respect of the profession are scarcely greater than his own. 
 
 We have one example in England of the ideal newspaper, but we owe it to a most 
 rare and fortunate combination of circumstances. We refer, of course, to the Manchester 
 Guardian. Mr. C. P. Scott is its owner, and, by common consent, one of the greatest 
 journalists in the world. The Guardian as we know it to-day is his creation. He edits 
 it in the fullest sense of the word, writing himself many of its more important leading 
 articles. He combines great literary and political judgment with a first-rate capacity 
 for business organisation, and the combination has enabled him to create a great 
 " property " without sacrificing either his principles to his circulation or his circulation 
 to his principles. 
 
 He cannot, however, we fear, be regarded as a type, for to his unique personal 
 qualities was added the good fortune of obtaining proprietorial control at an early age. 
 It is not to such happy concurrences that we can look for any real or permanent improve- 
 ment of the standards of British journalism. 
 
 Lord Northcliffe, on the other hand, is a type — though a very remarkable type — 
 and he will have successors, worthy or unworthy. He is something of a politician 
 nowadays, but he is a journalist first. He never pressed or indulged his personal views 
 and predilections until he had made quite sure of his public. He has a real sense of 
 journalistic values. When he bought the Times he played no tricks with it and made 
 no substantial alterations until he felt strong enough to carry his public with him 
 
 22 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 Sir Arthur Pearson, who very nearly bought it over his head, would almost certainly 
 have killed it as he killed the Standard ; but Lord NorthclifEe knew his business — 
 knew, that is to say, how to modernise The Times without sacrificing an appreciable 
 fraction of its European prestige. Men who work for him know that good work, estimated 
 of course by his standards, will not escape observation ; also that bad work will be visited 
 with abrupt dismissal without the smallest compunction. His methods may sometimes 
 be brutal, but they imply a comprehensible standard, a professional standard. 
 
 To give examples of an opposite kind from the recent history of other papers and 
 other proprietors would be easy but invidious. We may perhaps, however, refer to 
 a remarkable fact which illustrates vividly enough the defects of what we may call non- 
 professional control. That fact is that the two greatest Liberal journalists in this 'country 
 — Mr, J. A. Spender and Mr. A. G. Gardiner — have both been allowed to disappear from 
 daily journalism. Mr. Spender's supreme technical capacity as a leader-writer is univer- 
 sally recognised. He made a small evening newspaper one of the great political forces, 
 not merely of this country but of Europe. 
 
 In America the views of the Westminster Gazette were more widely quoted than those 
 even of The Times. Lord Northcliffe, it is said, once offered Mr. Spender the editorship 
 of The Times. We can well believe it, for Lord Northcliffe recognises professional merit. 
 But the people for whom Mr. Spender was willing to work have allowed him to retire ! 
 Such are the ways of the amateur capitalist in journalism ! 
 
 As for Mr. Gardiner, we suppose that as a political writer he has a larger and more 
 devoted public than any other journalist in Great Britain, with the possible but by no 
 means certain exception of Mr. Garvin. Yet he, too, is silenced, because an old gentleman 
 who lives near Birmingham, and very likely has scarcely ever seen the inside of a news- 
 paper office, chooses to indulge a personal prejudice. It is surely an outrageous fact 
 that such men should be subject to such whims and chances. A Lord Beaverbrook 
 might have quarrelled with A. G. G., but he would not easily have let him go. 
 
 The subject is for journalists a fascinating one, and we are tempted to write at too 
 great length on it. We might easily fill as many more columns as we have already filled 
 without getting near an end. And it is a subject which, after all, is of quite vital im- 
 portance to the future of literate democracies. There is no doubt, we suppose, that 
 Liberal and Labour opinion is numerically dominant in Great Britain at this moment ; 
 yet where is the Liberal and Labour Press ? 
 
 Lord Northcliffe's papers are Independent, Sir E. Hulton's are Independent Con- y 
 servative, and Lord Beaverbrook's are more Liberal than Conservative. But as a whole, ' 
 the Press is overwhelmingly Conservative. London has no first-class Liberal paper at 
 all. There has been failure after failure, each more depressing and complete than the 
 last, and the position at this moment seems more hopeless than ever. Yet, quite obviously, 
 there is room for a Liberal daily which would be a great " property." Labour is in an^ 
 even worse case. It has only one daily newspaper in England, and that one ekes out an 
 extremely precarious existence by what Lord Northcliffe quite justly calls " undignified 
 howling for a ' rally ' or a dole." 
 
 23 
 
NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR MILLIONAIRES. 
 
 The idea that a successful Labour newspaper can be created by relying upon the 
 " loyalty " of Trade Unionists to induce them to purchase an inferior article — as suggested 
 in a little book just published by Mr. Norman Angell — seems to us entirely fallacious 
 and unsound. Liberal and Labour newspapers will- always fail until their promoters 
 learn (i) that they must recognise professional standards and employ the best profes- 
 sional talent they can buy ; and (2) that in a daily newspaper new-s~must come first and 
 politics second — that is to say, that ycaj_must win your public before you dare to press 
 your views upon it. The news in the Daily Herald, for instance, is not only skimpy 
 but more tendencious (by selection and presentation) than that of any other paper in the 
 country. That may suit the faithful, but it will not suit those who are not yet faithful 
 and whom it is the business of such a paper to influence. 
 
 The giving of full and accurate news is a matter of purely professional competence 
 and professional morality, having no relation whatever to any political opinion ; and 
 so far as that side, which is the most important side, of a newspaper is concerned, the 
 test of circulation is the fair and proper test. Outside its leader columns a daily 
 newspaper has no business to be " propagandist" at all, and a paper which ignores 
 that simple axiom, under present economic conditions, will quite surely fail. 
 
 A successful Labour newspaper, for instance, cannot, and never will, be run by 
 a Committee of Trade Union Secretaries, unless they are wise enough to enlist the best 
 journalistic talent they can obtain and then to give it a really free hand. Likewise, 
 Liberal capitalists, if they want a paper which is more than a toy, and which can compete 
 with the professionally-owned Press, must learn to distinguish between first-rate 
 professional advice and third-rate professional advice. Success in newspaper production 
 follows close on the heels of technical excellence. Lord Northcliffe should have taught 
 all of us that by this time. A rich man does not ask a country solicitor to conduct a 
 great commercial case in the High Court, nor for a dangerous operation does he choose 
 his doctor on grounds of accidental personal friendship. 
 
 But just such things are constantly happening in journalism. It all comes back 
 to the question of the recognition of the professional status of the journalist. Lord 
 Northcliffe is perfectly justified in poking fun at his " millionaire " colleagues. The 
 well-meaning and public-spirited amateur, who does not understand journalistic values 
 and has not grasped the subtlety of that faculty which enablessome men to know what 
 their readers want much better than the readers know it themselves, has no place in the 
 journalistic world. Unintentionally, he degrades journalism and destroys its security 
 as a profession. Usually he pays high for experience and then cuts his losses before 
 he has had time to learn his lesson. And so the weary round goes on, until journalists 
 of all political colours are almost driven to pray for more Northclifies. 
 
 Piloted at the Amalgamated Press Printing Works, Lavington St., Southwark, S.E. I, and published by the 
 Associated Newspapers Ltd., Carmelite House, London, E.C. 4. 
 
RETURN 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 This book xsau ^ ^^ to ^hichjenewedj 
 
 Renewed books are 
 
 foJui^i 
 
 ferrccr 
 
 25 W 9 ROO 
 
 0Cn£J98JL 
 
 LD 21A-50m-ll,'62 
 (D3279sl0)476B 
 
 General Library _ 
 University of California 
 Berkeley 
 
 ^PShi0h003 
 
 S3HW8nA313MH3fl On 
 
v