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]