THE LONDON TIMES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2046, 15 May 1890, Page 3

THE LONDON TIMES.

There are some startling statements, if true, in a special article iD tbe Review of Reviews for March concerning the " disaster" waioh lias overtaken the London Times newspaper since the publication of Pigott's forgeries. When Mr Houston first went to The Times and offered the alleged Parnell letters he asked for £I7BO. The Times paid £I7BO for the first batch of letters, with another £IOOO or more added for o'her bitches purchased hereafter, ranking the first cost of the forgeries amount lo between £3OOO and £4OOO. From these acquisitions the expenditure began. It has gone oq increasing ever since. A sum of £SOOO was recently paid over to Mr Parnell as damages in his libel suit, but from first to last, it is stated, The Times ha« dropped, in solid cash down, over £IOB,OOO. Then rb regards advertisements and circulation. In 1871 the total gross revenue of the paper was stated to be £460,000—£30©,©00 coming from advertisements and £160,000 from sales. The Times lost last year in advertisaments a'one at the rate r-f £20,600 per annum. There wero 500 columns Igsb of advertisemens in the twelve months fallowing the opening of the Pamell Commission than in the previous tvvjlve mouths. Now, as to the circulation of The Times, the writer states that in 1844 it was 24,000 copies ; in 1851 40,000 ; in 1854, 51,000 ; in 1860, 60,000 ; in 1871 it had droped to 50,000. Whoa Mr Walter, the chief proprietor, went to America, he stated publicly at a banquet that the circulation of his p»per w-»s 50,000 a day. But according to the article from which we are quoting, the daily average sale ia not now much above 25,000. If a circulation of 60,000 brought io £160,000 in gross saleß, a circulation of 25,000 represents a drop &t £67,000. The total loss from advertisements and sales since 1886 is £50,000 per annum—a naach more serious matter than the direct loos of £IOO 000 over tho forged letters. In 1888 a dividend cheque paid (o one of the shareholders represented an anuual dividend of over £120,000. In 1889 his cheque represented a dividend of barely £12,@00."