A discursive book anent the eighteenth century, as this is, would be incomplete without a mention of one of the greatest powers which it produced. This marvellous newspaper, whose utterances, at one time, exercised a sensible influence over the whole of the civilised world, and which, even now, is the most potent of all the English press, was founded by Mr. John Walter, on January 1, 1788.

This gentleman was born either in 1738 or 1739, and his father followed the business of a ‘coal buyer,’ which meant that he bought coals at the pit’s mouth, and then shipped them to any desired port, or market. In those days almost all coals came, by sea, from Newcastle, and its district, because of the facility of carriage; the great inland beds being practically unworked, and in many cases utterly unknown: it being reserved for the giant age of steam to develop their marvellous resources.

His father died in 1755, John Walter then being seventeen and, boy though he was, he at once succeeded to his father’s business. In it he was diligent and throve well, and he so won the confidence and respect of his brother ‘coal buyers’ that when a larger Coal Exchange was found necessary, in order to accommodate, and keep pace with its increasing business, the whole of the arrangements, plans, and directions were left in his hands. When the building was completed, he was rewarded by his brethren in trade with the position of manager, and afterwards he became Chairman to the Body of Coal Buyers.

He married, and, in 1771, things had gone so prosperously with him that he bought a house with some ground at Battersea Rise, and here he lived, and reared his family of six children, until his bankruptcy, when it was sold. He also took unto himself partners, and was the head of the firm of Walter, Bradley, and Sage. For some time all went well, but competition arose, and the old-fashioned way of doing business could not hold its own against the keenness, and cutting, of the new style. Let us hear him tell his own story.39

‘I shall forbear relating the various scenes of business I was engaged in prior to my embarking in Lloyd’s Rooms; sufficient it is to remark that a very extensive trade I entered into at the early age of seventeen, when my father died, rewarded a strong spirit of industry, and, for the first ten or twelve years, with a satisfactory increase of fortune; but a number of inconsiderable dealers, by undermining the fair trader, and other dishonourable practices, reduced the profits, and made them inadequate to the risque and capital employed. It happened unfortunately for me, about that time, some policy brokers, who had large orders for insurances on foreign Indiamen and other adventures, found their way to the Coal Market, a building of which I was the principal planner and manager.

‘I was accustomed, with a few others, to underwrite the vessels particularly employed in that trade, and success attended the step, because the risque was fair, and the premiums adequate. This was my temptation for inclining to their solicitations of frequenting Lloyd’s Rooms.40 With great reluctance I complain that I quitted a trade where low art and cunning combated the fair principles of commerce, which my mind resisted as my fortune increased; but from the change I had to encounter deception and fraud, in a more dangerous but subtle degree.

‘The misfortunes of the war were of great magnitude to the Underwriters, but they were considerably multiplied by the villainy and depravity of Mankind. In the year 1776, at a time when they received only peace premiums, American privateers swarmed on the seas, drove to desperation by the Boston port act passing at the close of the preceding year, to prohibit their fisheries, and our trade fell a rapid prey before government had notice to apply the least protection. Flushed with success, it increased the number of their armed vessels, and proved such a source of riches as enabled them to open a trade with France, who had, hitherto, been only a silent spectator, and produced the sinews of a war which then unhappily commenced.’

He then details the causes which led to his bankruptcy—how the wars with the French, Spaniards, and Dutch, all of whom had their men-of-war and privateers, which preyed upon our commerce, ruined the underwriters, and continues,

‘In two years only of the war I lost, on a balance, thirty-one thousand pounds, which obliged me, in 1781, to quit the Coal Trade, after carrying it on so many years, when I had returned’ (? turned over) ‘above a Million of money, the profits of which have been sunk as an Underwriter, that I might have the use of my capital employed in it, to pay my unfortunate losses.... Last year, I was obliged to make a sacrifice of my desirable habitation at Battersea Rise, where I had resided ten years, and expended a considerable sum of money, the fruits of many years of industry, before I became acquainted with Lloyd’s Rooms.

‘These reserves, however, proved ineffectual, and I found it necessary, on examining the state of my accounts early in January last, to call my Creditors together; for, though some months preceding I found my fortune rapidly on the decline, I never suspected my being insolvent till that view of my affairs, when I found a balance in my favour of only nine thousand pounds, from which was to be deducted a fourth part owing me by brokers, who, unfortunately for me as well as themselves, were become bankrupts. This surplus, it was clear, would not bear me through known, though unsettled, losses, besides what might arise on unexpired risques. I therefore, without attempting to borrow a shilling from a friend, resorting to false Credit, or using any subterfuge whatever, after depositing what money remained in my hands, the property of others, laid the state of my affairs before my Creditors.

‘This upright conduct made them my friends; they immediately invested me with full power to settle my own affairs, and have acted with liberality and kindness. They were indebted for the early knowledge I gave them of my affairs to the regularity of my accounts; for, had I rested my inquiry till after the broker’s yearly accounts were chequed, in all probability a very trifling dividend would have ensued. Had the merchant been obliged to stand his own risque during the late war, few concerned on the seas would have been able to withstand the magnitude of their losses.

‘The only alleviation to comfort me in this affliction has arose from the consideration that I have acted honourably by all men; that, neither in prosperity nor adversity, have I ever been influenced by mean or mercenary motives in my connections with the world, of which I can give the most satisfactory proofs; that, when in my power, benevolence ever attended my steps; the deserving and needy never resorted to me in vain, nor has gratitude ever been wanting to express any obligations or kindnesses received from those I have had transactions with by every return in my power. I have the further consolation of declaring that, in winding up my affairs, I have acted with the strictest impartiality in every demand both for and against my estate; that I have (unsolicited) attended every meeting at Guildhall to protect it against plunder. A dividend was made as soon as the bankrupt laws would permit, and the surplus laid out in interest for the benefit of the estate, till a fair time is allowed to know what demands may come against it. I am fully convinced that it will not be £15,000 deficient; above double that sum I have left in Lloyd’s Rooms as a profit among the brokers.

‘No prospect opening of embarking again in business for want of Capital to carry it on, I was advised to make my case known to the administration, which has been done both by public and private application of my friends, who kindly interceded in my behalf for some respectable post under Government, and met with that kind reception from the Minister which gave me every prospect of success, which I flatter myself I have some natural claim to, from the consideration that, as trade is the support of the nation, it could not be carried on without Underwriters.

‘And as the want of protection to the trade of the Country, from the host of enemies we had to combat, occasioned by misfortunes, whom could I fly to with more propriety than to Government? as, by endeavouring to protect commerce, I fell a martyr on the conclusion of an unfortunate war. I was flattered with hopes that my pretensions to an appointment were not visionary, and that I was not wanting in ability to discharge the duties of any place I might have the honour to fill. The change of administration41 which happened soon after was death to my hopes, and, as I had little expectation of making equal interest with the Minister who succeeded, I have turned my thoughts to a matter which appeared capable of being a most essential improvement in the conduct of the Press;42 and, by great attention and assiduity for a year past, it is now reduced from a very voluminous state and great incorrectness to a system which, I hope, will meet the public approbation and countenance.

‘Such is the brief state of a Case which I trust humanity will consider deserving a better fate. Judge what must be my sensations on this trying occasion: twenty-six years in the prime of life passed away, all the fortune I had acquired by a studious attention to business sunk by hasty strides, and the world to begin afresh, with the daily introduction to my view of a wife and six children unprovided for, and dependent on me for support. Feeling hearts may sympathise at the relation, none but parents can conceive the anxiety of my mind in such a state of uncertainty and suspense.’

From an unprejudiced perusal of this ‘case,’ the reader can but come to the conclusion that Mr. John Walter was not overburdened with that inconvenient commodity—modesty; and that his logic—judged by ordinary rules—is decidedly faulty. But that he did try to help himself, is evidenced by the following advertisement in the Morning Post of July 21, 1784:

‘To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-councilmen of the City of London.

‘My Lord and Gentlemen,

‘The Office of Principal Land Coal Meter of this City being at present vacant by the death of Mr. John Evans, permit me to solicit the honour of succeeding him. My pretensions to your countenance on this occasion are the misfortunes in which (in common with many other respectable Citizens) I have been involved by the calamities of the late war, and an unblemished reputation, which has survived the wreck of my fortune. Having been a Liveryman twenty-four years, during which time I carried on an extensive branch of the coal trade, my fellow-citizens cannot well be unacquainted with my character; and my having been greatly instrumental in establishing the very office which I solicit your interest to fill, will, I hope, be deemed an additional recommendation to your patronage.

‘If my pretensions should meet your approbation, and be crowned with success, I shall ever retain a lively sense of so signal an obligation on,

‘My Lord and Gentlemen, ‘Your most obedient, devoted, humble servant, ‘John Walter. ‘Printing House Square, Blackfriars.’

We hear of him again in connection with this situation, which he did not succeed in obtaining, in an advertisement in the Morning Post, 30th of July, 1784.

‘To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, &c.

‘The Report, which a few days ago was credited by few, is now confirmed by many, and believed by all men, that a Coalition has been formed for the purpose of forcing you to bestow the emoluments of the Principal Land Coal Meter Office on two Aldermen, and it has been agreed that, on the day of the Election, one of them shall decline the Contest, and make a transfer to the other of the votes which some of you were pleased to engage to him....

‘My pretensions I submit to the Corporation at large, and I strongly solicit the assistance of the merchants and traders of the Metropolis to join their efforts, and endeavour to wrest the power of appointment from the hands of a Junto, and restore the freedom of Election. Assert your independence, and consequence, in time; with your breath you can blast the Coalition in its infancy; but, if you suffer it to conquer you in its present state, it will become a Hydra that will swallow up your Franchises, and leave you, like a Cathedral Chapter, the liberty of obeying a congÉ d’Èlire sent to you by a self-constituted faction.

‘I am, &c., &c., ‘John Walter. ‘Printing House Square, Blackfriars.’

How did he come to this (to us) familiar address? It was by a chance which came in his way, and he seized it. In 1782 he, somehow, became acquainted with a compositor named Henry Johnson, who pointed out the trouble and loss of time occasioned by setting up words with types of a single letter, and proposed that at all events those words mostly in use should be cast in one. These were called ‘Logotypes’ (or word types), and printing, therefore, was called ‘Logography.’ Caslon at first made the types—but there is evidence that they quarrelled, for in a letter of August 12, 1785, in the Daily Universal Register of that date, which he reprinted in broadside form, he says, ‘Mr. Caslon, the founder (whom I at first employed to cast my types), calumniated my plan, he censured what he did not understand, wantonly disappointed me in the work he engaged to execute, and would meanly have sacrificed me, to establish the fallacious opinion he had promulgated.’

People had their little jokes about the ‘Logotypes,’ and Mr. Knight Hunt, in his ‘Fourth Estate,’ writes, ‘It was said that the orders to the type-founder ran after this fashion, “Send me a hundred-weight of heat, cold, wet, dry, murder, fire, dreadful robbery, atrocious outrage, fearful calamity, and alarming explosion.”’ That he obtained not only literary, but royal recognition of his pet type, is shown by a foot-note to the letter above quoted (respecting Mr. Caslon),

‘Any gentleman who chuses may inspect the Logographic Founts and Types, at the Printing-office, or at the British Museum, to which place they have been removed from the Queen’s Palace.’

Where he got his money from he does not say, but on the 17th of May, 1784, he advertised that ‘Mr. Walter begs to inform the public that he has purchased the printing-house formerly occupied by Mr. Basket near Apothecaries Hall, which will be opened on the first day of next month for printing words entire, under his Majesty’s Patent;’ and he commenced business June 1, 1784.

Printing House Square stands on the site of the old Monastery of Blackfriars. After the dissolution of the monasteries, in Henry the Eighth’s time, it passed through several hands, until it became the workshop of the royal printer. Here was printed, in 1666, the London Gazette, the oldest surviving paper in England; and, the same year, the all-devouring Great Fire completely destroyed it. Phoenix-like, it arose from its ashes, more beautiful than before—for the writer of ‘A New View of London,’ published in 1708, thus describes it: Printing House Lane, on the E side of Blackfryars: a passage to the Queen’s Printing House (which is a stately building).’

‘Formerly occupied by Mr. Basket,’ a printer, under the royal patent, of Bibles and Prayer-books. To him succeeded other royal and privileged printers. Eyre and Strahan, afterwards Eyre, Strahan, and Spottiswoode, now Spottiswoode and Co., who, in 1770, left Printing House Square, and moved to New Street, Fleet Street, a neighbourhood of which, now, that firm have a virtual monopoly.

John Walter could not have dreamed of the palace now built at Bearwood; for, like most mercantile men of his day, he was quite content to ‘live over the shop’; and there, in Printing House Square, his son, and successor, John (who lived to build Bearwood), was born, and there James Carden, Esq., received his bride, John Walter’s eldest daughter, who was the mother of the present venerable alderman, Sir Robert Carden. There, too, died his wife, the partner of his successes and his failures, in the year 1798.

The first work printed at this logographic printing establishment was a little story called, ‘Gabriel, the Outcast.’ Many other slight works followed; but these were not enough to satisfy the ambitions of John Walter, who, six months after he commenced business, started a newspaper, the Daily Universal Register, on the 1st of January, 1785.43 Even at that date there was no lack of newspapers, although our grandfathers were lucky to have escaped the infliction of the plague of periodicals under which we groan; for there were the Morning Post, the Morning Chronicle, the General Advertiser, London Gazette, London Chronicle, Gazetteer, Morning Herald, St. James’s Chronicle, London Recorder, General Evening Post, Public Advertiser, Lounger, Parker’s General Advertiser, &c. So we must conclude that John Walter’s far-seeing intelligence foretold that a good daily paper, ably edited, would pay. It was logographically printed, and was made the vehicle of puffs of the proprietor’s hobby. The Times was also so printed for a short period, but, eventually, it proved so cumbersome in practice, as absolutely to hinder the compositors, instead of aiding them.

On the 1st of January, 1788, was born a baby that has since grown into a mighty giant. On that day was published the first number of the Times, or Daily Universal Register, for it had a dual surname, and the reasons for the alteration are given in the following ‘editorial.’

‘The Times.

‘Why change the head?

‘This question will naturally come from the Public—and we, the Times, being the Public’s most humble and obedient Servants, think ourselves bound to answer:—

‘All things have heads—and all heads are liable to change.

‘Every sentence and opinion advanced by Mr. Shandy on the influence and utility of a well-chosen surname may be properly applied in showing the recommendations and advantages which result from placing a striking title-page before a book, or an inviting Head on the front page of a Newspaper.

‘A Head so placed, like those heads which once ornamented Temple Bar, or those of the great Attorney, or great Contractor, which, not long since, were conspicuously elevated for their great actions, and were exhibited, in wooden frames, at the East and West Ends of this Metropolis, never fails of attracting the eyes of passengers—though, indeed, we do not expect to experience the lenity shown to these great exhibitors, for probably the Times will be pelted without mercy.

‘But then, a head with a good face is a harbinger, a gentleman-usher, that often strongly recommends even Dulness, Folly, Immorality, or Vice. The immortal Locke gives evidence to the truth of this observation. That great philosopher has declared that, though repeatedly taken in, he never could withstand the solicitations of a well-drawn title-page—authority sufficient to justify us in assuming a new head and a new set of features, but not with a design to impose; for we flatter ourselves the Head of the Times will not be found deficient in intellect, but, by putting a new face on affairs, will be admired for the light of its countenance, whenever it appears.

‘To advert to our first position.

‘The Universal Register has been a name as injurious to the Logographic Newspaper, as Tristram was to Mr. Shandy’s Son. But Old Shandy forgot he might have rectified by confirmation the mistakes of the parson at baptism—with the touch of a Bishop have changed Tristram to Trismegistus.

‘The Universal Register, from the day of its first appearance to the day of its confirmation, has, like Tristram, suffered from unusual casualties, both laughable and serious, arising from its name, which, on its introduction, was immediately curtailed of its fair proportion by all who called for it—the word Universal being Universally omitted, and the word Register being only retained.

‘“Boy, bring me the Register.”

‘The waiter answers: “Sir, we have not a library, but you may see it at the New Exchange Coffee House.”

‘“Then I’ll see it there,” answers the disappointed politician; and he goes to the New Exchange, and calls for the Register; upon which the waiter tells him he cannot have it, as he is not a subscriber, and presents him with the Court and City Register, the Old Annual Register, or, if the Coffee-house be within the Purlieus of Covent Garden, or the hundreds of Drury, slips into the politician’s hand Harris’s Register of Ladies.

‘For these and other reasons the parents of the Universal Register have added to its original name that of the

TIMES,

Which, being a monosyllable, bids defiance to corrupters and mutilaters of the language.

‘The Times! What a monstrous name! Granted, for the Times is a many-headed monster, that speaks with an hundred tongues, and displays a thousand characters, and, in the course of its transformations in life, assumes innumerable shapes and humours.

‘The critical reader will observe we personify our new name; but as we give it no distinction of sex, and though it will be active in its vocations, yet we apply to it the neuter gender.

‘The Times, being formed of materials, and possessing qualities of opposite and heterogeneous natures, cannot be classed either in the animal or vegetable genus; but, like the Polypus, is doubtful, and in the discussion, description, dissection, and illustration will employ the pens of the most celebrated among the Literati.

‘The Heads of the Times, as has been said, are many; they will, however, not always appear at the same time, but casually, as public or private affairs may call them forth.

‘The principal, or leading heads are—

‘Each of which are supplied with a competent share of intellects for the pursuit of their several functions; an endowment which is not in all times to be found even in the Heads of the State, the heads of the Church, the heads of the Law, the heads of the Navy, the heads of the Army, and though last, not least, the great heads of the Universities.

‘The Political Head of the Times, like that of Janus, the Roman Deity, is doubly faced; with one countenance it will smile continually on the friends of Old England, and with the other will frown incessantly on her enemies.

‘The alteration we have made in our head is not without precedents. The World has parted with half its Caput Mortuum, and a moiety of its brains. The Herald has cut off half its head, and has lost its original humour. The Post, it is true, retains its whole head and its old features; and, as to the other public prints, they appear as having neither heads nor tails. On the Parliamentary Head every communication that ability and industry can produce may be expected. To this great National object, the Times will be most sedulously attentive, most accurately correct, and strictly impartial in its reports.’

The early career of the Times was not all prosperity, and Mr. Walter was soon taught a practical lesson in keeping his pen within due bounds, for, on July 11th, 1788, he was tried for two libellous paragraphs published in the Times, reflecting on the characters of the Duke of York, Gloucester, and Cumberland, stating them to be ‘insincere’ in their profession of joy at his Majesty’s recovery. It might have been an absolute fact, but it was impolitic to print it, and so he found it, for a jury found him guilty.

He came up for judgment at the King’s Bench on the 23rd of November next, when he was sentenced by the Court to pay a fine of fifty pounds, to be imprisoned twelve months in Newgate, to stand in the pillory at Charing Cross, when his punishment should have come to an end, and to find security for his good behaviour.

He seems to have ridden a-tilt at all the royal princes, for we next hear of him under date of 3rd of February, 1790, being brought from Newgate to the Court of King’s Bench to receive sentence for the following libels:

For charging their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and Duke of York with having demeaned themselves so as to incur the displeasure of his Majesty. This, doubtless, was strictly true, but it cost the luckless Walter one hundred pounds as a fine, and another twelve months’ imprisonment in Newgate.

This, however, was not all; he was arraigned on another indictment for asserting that His Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence returned from his station without leave of the Admiralty, or of his commanding officer, and for this he was found guilty, and sentenced to pay another hundred pounds.

Whether he made due submission, or had powerful friends to assist him, I know not,—but it is said that it was at the request of the Prince of Wales—at all events, he received the king’s pardon, and was released from confinement on 7th of March, 1791, after which time he never wrote about the king’s sons in a way likely to bring him within the grip of the Law.

From time to time we get little avisos as to the progress of the paper, for John Walter was not one of those who hide their light under a bushel. Contrast the printing power then with the magnificent ‘Walter’ machines of the present day, which, in their turn, will assuredly be superseded by some greater improvement.

The Times, 7th of February, 1794. ‘The Proprietors have for some time past been engaged in making alterations which they trust will be adequate to remedy the inconvenience of the late delivery complained of; and after Monday next the Times will be worked off with three Presses, and occasionally with four, instead of TWO, as is done in all other Printing-offices, by which mode two hours will be saved in printing the Paper, which, notwithstanding the lateness of the delivery, is now upwards of Four Thousand Three Hundred in sale, daily.’

The following statement is curious, as showing us some of the interior economy of the newspaper in its early days. From the Times, April 19, 1794:

‘To the Public.

‘It is with very great regret that the Proprietors of this Paper, in Common with those of other Newspapers, find themselves obliged to increase the daily price of it One Halfpenny, a measure which they have been forced to adopt in consequence of the Tax laid by the Minister on Paper, during the present Session of Parliament, and which took place on the 5th instant.

‘While the Bill was still pending, we not only stated in our Newspaper, but the Minister was himself informed by a Committee of Proprietors, that the new Duty would be so extremely oppressive as to amount to a necessity of raising the price, which it was not only their earnest Wish, but also their Interest, to avoid. The Bill, however, passed, after a long consideration and delay occasioned by the great doubts that were entertained of its efficacy. We wish a still longer time had been taken to consider it; for we entertain the same opinion as formerly, that the late Duty on Paper will not be productive to the Revenue, while it is extremely injurious to a particular class of Individuals, whose property was very heavily taxed before.

‘In fact, it amounts either to a Prohibition of printing a Newspaper at the present price, or obliges the Proprietors to advance it. There is no option left; the price of Paper is now so high that the Proprietors have no longer an interest to render their sale extensive, as far as regards the profits of a large circulation. The more they sell at the present price, the more they will lose; to us alone the Advance on Paper will make a difference of £1,200 sterling per Annum more than it formerly cost us—a sum which the Public must be convinced neither can, nor ought to be afforded by any Property of the limited nature of a Newspaper, the profits on the sale of which are precisely as follows:

‘Sale.

2,000 Newspapers sold to the Newshawkers at 3½d., with a further deduction of allowing them a Paper in every Quire ... ... ... £26 18 6.

‘Cost of 2,000 Papers.

A Bundle of Paper containing 2,000 Half-sheets, or 2,000 Newspapers at Four Guineas per Bundle, which is the price it will be sold at under the new Duty is £4 4 0.

‘This is the whole Profit on the sale of two thousand Newspapers, out of which is to be deducted the charges of printing a Newspaper (which, on account of the Rise in Printers’ Wages last year, is £100 a year more than it ever was before), the charges of Rent, Taxes, Coals, Candles (which are very high in every Printing-office), Clerks, general Superintendance, Editing, Parliamentary and Law Reports, and, above all, the Expenses of Foreign Correspondence, which, under the present difficulties of obtaining it, and the different Channels which must be employed to secure a regular and uninterrupted Communication, is immense. If this Paper is in high estimation, surely the Proprietors ought to receive the advantage of their success, and not the Revenue, which already monopolises such an immense income from this property, no less than to the amount of £14,000 sterling during last year only. We trust that these reasons will have sufficient weight with the Public to excuse us when we announce, though with very great regret, that on Monday next the price of this Paper will be Fourpence Halfpenny.’

Occasionally, the proprietor fell foul of his neighbours; vide the Times, November 16, 1795:

‘All the abuse so lavishly bestowed on this Paper by other Public Prints, seems as if designed to betray, that in proportion as our sale is good, it is bad Times with them.’

In the early part of 1797, Pitt proposed, among other methods of augmenting the revenue, an additional stamp of three halfpence on every newspaper. The Times, April 28, 1797, groaned over it thus:

‘The present daily sale of the Times is known to be between four and five thousand Newspapers. For the sake of perspicuity, we will make our calculation on four thousand only, and it will hold good in proportion to every other Paper.

‘The Newsvendors are now allowed by the Proprietors of every Newspaper two sheets in every quire, viz., twenty-six for every twenty-four Papers sold. The stamp duty on two Papers in every quire in four thousand Papers daily at the old Duty of 2d., amounts to £780 a year, besides the value of the Paper. An additional Duty of 1½d. will occasion a further loss of £585 in this one instance only, for which there is not, according to Mr. Pitt’s view of the subject, to be the smallest remuneration to the Proprietors. Is it possible that anything can be so unjust? If the Minister persists in his proposed plan, it will be impossible for Newspapers to be sold at a lower rate than sixpence halfpenny per Paper.’

Pitt, of course, carried out his financial plan, and the newspapers had to grin, and bear it as best they could—the weaker going to the wall, as may be seen by the following notices which appeared in the Times, July 5:

‘To the Public.

‘We think it proper to remind our Readers and the Public at large that, in consequence of the heavy additional Duty of Three Half-pence imposed on every Newspaper, by a late Act of Parliament, which begins to have effect from and after this day, the Proprietors are placed in the very unpleasant position of being compelled to raise the price of their Newspapers to the amount of the said Duty. To the Proprietors of this Paper it will prove a very considerable diminution of the fair profits of the Trade; they will not, however, withdraw in the smallest degree any part of the Expenses which they employ in rendering the Times an Intelligent and Entertaining source of Information: and they trust with confidence that the Public will bestow on it the same liberal and kind Patronage which they have shown for many years past; and for which the Proprietors have to offer sentiments of sincere gratitude. From this day, the price of every Newspaper will be Sixpence.’

July 19, 1797. ‘Some of the Country Newspapers have actually given up the Trade, rather than stand the risk of the late enormous heavy Duty: many others have advertised them for Sale: some of those printed in Town must soon do the like, for the fair profits of Trade have been so curtailed, that no Paper can stand the loss without having a very large proportion of Advertisements. We have very little doubt but that, so far from Mr. Pitt’s calculation of a profit of £114,000 sterling by the New Tax on Newspapers, the Duty, the same as on Wine, will fall very short of the original Revenue.’

July 13, 1797. ‘As a proof of the diminution in the general sale of Newspapers since the last impolitic Tax laid on them, we have to observe, as one instance, that the number of Newspapers sent through the General Post Office on Monday the 3rd instant, was 24,700, and on Monday last, only 16,800, a falling off of nearly one-third.’

Once again we find John Walter falling foul of a contemporary—and indulging in editorial amenities.

July 2, 1798. ‘The Morning Herald has, no doubt, acted from very prudent motives in declining to state any circumstances respecting its sale. All that we hope and expect, in future, is—that it will not attempt to injure this Paper by insinuating that it was in a declining state; an assertion which it knows to be false, and which will be taken notice of in a different way if repeated. The Morning Herald is at liberty to make any other comments it pleases.’

Have the Daily Telegraph and the Standard copied from John Walter, when they give public notice that their circulation is so-and-so, as is vouched for by a respectable accountant? It would seem so, for this notice appeared in the Times:

‘We have subjoined an Affidavit sworn yesterday before a Magistrate of the City, as to the present sale of the Times.

‘“We, C. Bentley and G. Burroughs, Pressmen of the Times, do make Oath, and declare, That the number printed of the Times Paper for the last two months, has never been, on any one day, below 3 thousand, and has fluctuated from that number to three thousand three hundred and fifty.”

‘And, in order to avoid every subterfuge, I moreover attest, That the above Papers of the Times were paid for to me, previous to their being taken by the Newsmen from the Office, with the exception of about a dozen Papers each morning which are spoiled in Printing.

‘J. Bonsor, Publisher. ‘Sworn before me December 31, 1798. ‘W. Curtis.’

From this time the career of the Times seems to have been prosperous, for we read, January 1, 1799,

‘The New Year.

‘The New Year finds the Times in the same situation which it has invariably enjoyed during a long period of public approbation. It still continues to maintain its character among the Morning Papers, as the most considerable in point of sale, as of general dependence with respect to information, and as proceeding on the general principles of the British Constitution. While we thus proudly declare our possession of the public favour, we beg leave to express our grateful sense of the unexampled patronage we have derived from it.’

Mr. John Walter was never conspicuous for his modesty, and its absence is fully shown in the preceding and succeeding examples (January 1, 1800):

‘It is always with satisfaction that we avail ourselves of the return of the present Season to acknowledge our sense of the obligation we lay under to the Public, for the very liberal Patronage with which they have honoured the Times, during many years; a constancy of favour, which, we believe, has never before distinguished any Newspaper, and for which the Proprietors cannot sufficiently express their most grateful thanks.

‘This Favour is too valuable and too honourable to excite no envy in contemporary Prints, whose frequent habit it is to express it by the grossest calumnies and abuse. The Public, we believe, has done them ample justice, and applauded the contempt with which it is our practice to receive them.’

As this self-gratulatory notice brings us down to the last year of the eighteenth century, I close this notice of ‘The Times and its Founder.’ John Walter died at Teddington, Middlesex, on the 26th of January, 1812.