published in anticipation of the passing of the Act. Anyway, the _Birmingham Daily Press_ appeared in the year mentioned, and considering that it was altogether a new venture, and that much had to be learned by experience, it was a highly creditable production. It soon made its mark, too, and became popular and largely read. And no wonder. It supplied a real want. Its contents were readable and useful, and its pages contained smart and attractive articles and papers that excited notice and were much appreciated. Mr. George Dawson was connected with the paper. Mr. William Harris was editor, or co-editor, of it, and on its staff and among its contributors were some sharp and able writers. With all these merits and recommendations it will be asked, why did not the _Birmingham Daily Press_ succeed? Well, I do not think I can quite answer the question. I can only say that judging by what I have observed and heard literary excellence, good reporting, and able editing will not make a paper commercially successful. If a newspaper is to succeed in paying its way and making a profit, its business management must be in experienced and competent hands. A daily newspaper is apt to be a deadly drain if its expenditure exceeds its receipts--as the daily loss has to be multiplied by six every week--and this tells up large in the course of a year. There can be no question that the _Birmingham Daily Press_ had a fine start, and a splendid chance. But the chance was not turned to the best account, and the promising start ended in a lamentable finish. This, too, in spite of the fact that the paper became really well established. Indeed, Mr. (now Sir John) Jaffray was heard to say that for a long; time the _Birmingham Daily Post_, which was started some two years or more after the _Birmingham Daily Press_, could make no impression, so firm a footing had the latter paper obtained in the town. But Messrs. Feeney and Jaffray had put their hands to the plough; they pegged away with the _Birmingham Daily Post_ till it did make an impression, and the proprietors being able and experienced in the matter of newspaper business management, they stood very firm when they did begin to feel their feet. They drove the town--not from pillar to post, but from _Daily Press_ to _Daily Post_. They established their position, and that position they have gone on improving unto this day. As for the unfortunate _Daily Press_, it fell into a very serious decline, and finally expired somewhat suddenly in November, 1858. Its successful rival remarked in a not over sympathetic paragraph that "it went out like the snuff of a candle leaving behind it something of the flavour of that domestic nuisance." I remember poor George Dawson, who had lost a good deal of money through the failure of the _Birmingham Daily Press_, thought the _Post's_ spiteful little obituary notice the unkindest cut of all. For victors to crow over the vanquished in such language he thought was worse than ungenerous, it was mean. I will not now pause to say anything in detail concerning the _Birmingham Daily Gazette_, started in 1862, the _Daily Mail_ in 1870,