THE LONDON DAILY AND PERIODICAL PRESS
It is not possible to write about the Newspaper without making
some compressed reference to the history of the press. But the
history of the press can be adequately treated only in a formidable
and forbiddingly dull work. The fact is that the only interesting
newspapers are live newspapers. It is practically impossible to read
with attention the files of bygone journals except for the purposes of
research. History has already eviscerated them and what history leaves
only biography or statistics can put to any use. Confined as we are
to brief space our best course is to deal only with living papers,
the selection of which is indeed a sufficient task and to note only
such facts in their complicated lives as will be of service to us in
determining the character of the British press as it is to-day. Of all
that exists anterior to these it will be sufficient to notice only
those parts of our subject, which have succeeded in creeping into the
history of our politics or our literature. Of the foreign press no more
than a brief contemporary review can be given.
England was the last in Europe to develop its own press and when it
came, it appeared in a full-fledged form that is startlingly modern.
During the controversies of the Civil War pamphleteering and preaching
were the great English weapons and owing to the seriousness of the
times both often ran into volumes. It was not until the easier days of
Queen Anne that we had our first daily paper with the _Daily Courant_
of 1702. But two years later we had a much more important event in the
advent of the _Review_. This was started by the true father of English
journalism and the greatest of all journalists, as I venture to define
the term, Daniel Defoe. As I propose to deal with his journalistic
character later on, I shall confine my remarks here only to the story
of the papers, which he published faithfully, if rather irregularly,
for nine years. This immense work was practically entirely the work
of Defoe’s own hands and in its 5,000 pages it included articles on
almost every subject of human knowledge. It practically established
the prevailing type of English journalism, which has survived to
our time. This type is neither literary nor critical, which is the
prevailing style with the French, nor the mere newsgatherer, such
as certain popular journals have been everywhere, but pre-eminently
an organ of opinion, dealing with current topics, so as to exert
political influence. In fact he was found carrying out this function of
influencing opinion to an extent, which modern notions of honour would
never condone, for at one time of his life about 1718, he, a Whig and
Nonconformist, is found taking a share in the conduct of three Jacobite
and High Church organs, _Mercurius Politicus_, _Dormer’s News Letter_
and _Mist’s Journal_, in order, as he says himself, “to take the sting
out of them” in the interests of the Whig government of the period.
This embodied a peculiar view of irony, not approved of even at the
time.
The _Review_ was soon followed by other famous names, the _Tatler_
started by Steele in 1709, the _Spectator_ by Steele and Addison
in 1711, yet while their object of supporting the Whigs was partly
achieved, these journals were too far removed from the popular type
to secure permanent success. Atterbury, Bolingbroke and above all
Swift were supporting the other side in politics in the _Examiner_,
but although the wit, eloquence and brilliant literary qualities
displayed by both these groups by far exceeded the equipment of Defoe
in these respects these joint journalistic efforts never succeeded in
following continuously the true path of development, which leads to our
modern newspapers. The same may be said of two other celebrities Henry
Fielding in the _Champion_ and _True Patriot_, both Whig organs and of
Johnson in the _Rambler_. In fact the only resemblance of the latter
to a newspaper was that it appeared at regular intervals and had the
general wish of the author to support Church and State, as they were
understood by the Tory party.
With the well-known names of Wilkes, rake, demagogue and editor of
the _North Britain_ (1762-3) and Woodfall, editor of the _Public
Advertiser_ and publisher of the famous _Letters of Junius_ we come
nearer still to the modern spirit. In both these cases the original
example of Defoe is followed of seeking for public support through
the press against the power and authority of government and thereby
of establishing the great English principle of its real and practical
independence. The example and success of Junius has also to my mind
had a far-reaching effect on our newspaper habits in helping to extend
the practice of anonymity, which has contributed so powerfully to the
wealth and influence of our leading organs. Finally with Cobbett,
soldier, agitator and editor of the _Weekly Political Register_
(1802-35) we come to the end of the predominantly personal note in
English journalism, which started with Defoe. In many respects Cobbett
strongly resembled the father of English journalism especially in his
directness, ruggedness and fertility. But he was quite incapable of
reaching the immortal heights, which Defoe touched more than once.
Though he was too independent to stoop to deceit, he was capable of
changing sides quite honestly, an inconsistency of which in his heart
Defoe never was guilty.
From henceforward we begin to deal not with journalists, even if they
were editors, but with influential papers established as impregnable
properties, independent of government, of their own brilliant literary
staff and sometimes, though rarely, of public opinion. This change
was brought about by a succession of three able and tenacious men in
one family and raised by the long service and controlling genius of a
fourth to a degree, which has made it for ever the model of English
journalism and to some extent of the press of the world. The history of
the _Times_ for half a century has become the history of the English
press and the duration of its greatest power coincides with the most
flourishing period in our journalism. That is why we may save ourselves
time and space by taking the course of its development in some detail,
leaving room only for the most recent history of other journals, which
have more or less followed its example.
The _Times_ was founded in 1785 by John Walter but received its
present name only three years later. Its early course represented the
general discontent of the middle-classes, which were the democracy of
those times, with the _régime_ of repression and financial sacrifices
enforced by Pitt, as the leader of the dominant aristocracy. For his
enmity to government and fearless exposure of high-placed misconduct
Walter suffered more than once in fine and imprisonment and only just
escaped sharing Defoe’s exaltation to the pillory. His counter-weapons
were however far more effective. He first understood the overwhelming
importance and popularity of early news. Refused the use of the post
for his foreign news packets he made himself independent of it and
beat the government again and again. He published the news of the
capture of Flushing twenty-four hours before the government received
their despatches. His attacks brought to ruin Lord Melville, Pitt’s
intimate friend. He had the temerity to send to the Peninsula Henry
Crabb Robinson, the first of all war correspondents and his paper was
the first to announce the battle of Waterloo.
Such men are more powerful than governments and though the elder John
Walter had relinquished part of his control in 1803 and had died in
1812, he lived long enough to hand over to the second John Walter
privileges and responsibilities which were primarily of his own
creation. The son was worthy of them and under him the _Times_ rose to
the assured position earned by his father’s fierce energy and his own
discreet judgment. John Walter, the son, found himself in comparatively
quiet times. He devoted himself to the problems of business management
and succeeded in 1814 in being the first printer to make use of
steam. It is not often that a paper is so well served by one man, as
to be kept more than abreast of all rivals as well in mechanical as
in editorial excellence. It took many years to place it well ahead.
Circulations in those days were not what they are now, and the _Times_
was not then the only expensive paper in London. But 10,000 a day was
not bad for 1834 and four years after John Walter’s death in 1847 it
was 40,000 and at the outbreak of the Crimean war the circulation rose
to 51,000. Compare this with the circulations of other London papers of
the time, ranging from 7,644 down to 2,667. There is no doubt about the
figures because at that time every copy had to be stamped.
It was under John Walter, the son’s, rule, that the editorial duties
expanded to an extent, which divorced them naturally from the
proprietorship. The editor of the _Times_ became something in himself.
Sir John Stoddart (1810) and Thomas Barnes (1816) at first held this
position but there was another power beneath them, hidden at the time,
but better known now. Edward Stirling, it was, who as a leader-writer
earned for his paper an imperishable nickname by the quaint assurance
with which he once wrote: “We thundered out the other day an article on
political reform--” Stirling, like the others, was the second Walter’s
appointment and one of the many Irishmen, who have successfully carried
their heads high in this growing profession. A greater Irishman still
was J. T. Delane (1841), the most successful selection, as editor, ever
made by a newspaper proprietor. There will be more to say about him
later on.
John Walter, the grandson, took over his father’s power in 1847 just
before the period of the greatest influence and almost the greatest
prosperity of the _Times_. This was so much personally the work of
Delane with the loyal support of his proprietor and the brilliant
achievements of his famous subordinate Russell, that it will have to
be dealt with more particularly in an account of the relations of
these two men. So great was the success of the _Times_ in restoring
by its sole influence the efficiency of the army in the Crimea and in
destroying the ministry responsible for the early failures in that war
that for many years it rode unrivalled and without question on the top
of the wave of power. Delane was succeeded as editor by his former
correspondent in Constantinople, Chenery (1877) and Chenery again
by Mr. Buckle (1884) and the latter in 1912 by Mr. G. G. Robinson.
During all this period the high standard of literary excellence and
editorial independence of the _Times_ has been unfailingly kept up.
The proprietorship passed into the hands of A. F. Walter in 1891 and
recently to a company, in which the head of the house of Harmsworth has
the chief interest.
Meanwhile modern forces had been at work undermining the commercial
monopoly of the _Times_. The inordinate cost of things had originally
been in favour of that organization, which first succeeded in forging
ahead of its rivals. The tax on each newspaper originally 4d. in 1815
fell to a penny, and was abolished in 1855. The taxes on advertising
were so high that in 1830 the _Times_ paid the sum of £70,000 on this
account, at a time when the total receipts from this tax amounted to
no more than £170,000.[9] The paper duty was abolished in 1861 in the
United Kingdom but this by itself, although important at the time, has
had less effect on the relative position of English newspapers than
the enormous cheapening of paper from the extension of the kinds of
material, of which it can be made. Paper which cost 10d. or 11d. a
pound in America during the ’sixties costs now only about one-tenth of
that price. Consequently the door has been opened for cheap competition
in all directions.
[9] They were reduced in 1833 and abolished in 1853.
The prestige of the _Times_ stands very high, but it had one shattering
experience, the effects of which were far-reaching. The manager in
1886 accepted, as authentic, forged letters, purporting to come from
Charles Parnell, and published them. The result was a trial of intense
political excitement lasting 128 days and terminating dramatically
by the flight and suicide of the forger, Charles Pigott and the
utter discomfiture of the paper. Mr. T. H. S. Escott, a contemporary
journalist of those days, remarks that “ten minutes’ reflection and the
slightest practical use of table talk, that would long ago have reached
Printing House Square, would have prevented the imposition’s success.
C. S. Parnell never wrote a line except under compulsion. It was simply
inconceivable that he should have troubled to disguise his caligraphy
in the laborious production of folios representing the work of many
days.” He compares the mistake made on this occasion with the trouble
taken by Delane on receipt of Blowitz’s secret news of the threat made
by Germany to reopen the war with France in 1875. Before publishing
this news--after a fortnight’s research Delane had sent his best man,
Chenery, to Paris and had made every personal enquiry about the truth
of it himself.
It is impossible to extend this brief account by a recital of many
other triumphs of the leading British paper. Its supreme position was
gained for it by the fortunate conjunction of talents and character
of four able men, but looking at its whole career philosophically
it is hard to deny that the true creator of this splendid property
and source of political power was the old John Walter, who had the
courage to fight Pitt and the English aristocracy at a time, when they
appeared to be irresistible. It must be remembered that he led the
middle-classes against the government in the days when no effective
power remained in any institution outside the ruling classes except
the press. At that period the wealthy bourgeoisie possessed too few
votes to make its real power felt and if they had been less ably and
forcibly represented they might ultimately have joined the forces
of revolution. But Walter was not a demagogue like Cobbett. He was
something of a statesman, while being wholly a journalist. He fought
the government with his strongest weapons and beat them whenever they
came upon his own ground. His successors filled in very ably and with
expert professional skill and cool judgment the gigantic outline, which
he left behind him, of a power able to control governments.
The year which imported the first great change in English journalism
was 1855, when the stamp duty was finally removed. The first to take
advantage of it and to challenge the sole control of middle-class
sentiments and pockets was the _Daily Telegraph_. This paper, founded
in 1855, was bought in that very year by a commercial genius, Joseph
Moses Levy, who at once enlarged its size and brought its price down to
a penny, which was the conquering touch. The property has been handled
with cool judgment and the paper has held ever since the first place
in the hearts and tastes of the lower middle-class. At one time it
had the largest circulation in the world and it is still ahead of all
penny rivals both in circulation and advertising revenue. The keynote
of its management has always been a judicious conservatism, which
knew the right moment to take a forward step but never took any that
were unnecessary. It is still in the hands of the same family, whose
representative is Lord Burnham. The editor is Mr. J. M. Lesage.
Another paper which came gradually forward about the same time in
some rivalry with the _Times_ was the _Standard_. Founded in 1827 it
came into line with the progressive press by being reduced to a penny
in 1858. In politics it represented the clergy and landed gentry and
aspired to greater power of literary expression than any daily morning
paper except the _Times_. One of its claims to distinction was the fact
that the late Marquis of Salisbury, most brilliant of free-lances,
wrote freely for it in his earlier days. Owned at one time by Captain
Johnston, it was left by him in the charge of a very able journalist
and manager, who brought it to great heights of prosperity during the
Disraelian period of power. When Mudford relinquished control at the
end of the century it began a decline, which has taken it through
several proprietorships.
A rival to the _Times_ on another side was the _Morning Post_, whose
history divides itself easily into two halves. Founded in 1772 its
early days were tinged with great literary distinction. At the turn
of the century it had frequent contributions from Coleridge, Southey,
Arthur Young and brought out some of Wordsworth’s greatest sonnets.
Mackworth Praed was later a regular contributor. But in accordance with
a well-known commercial law that with too much brilliancy there is too
little money it passed ultimately to a paper-maker named Crompton in
satisfaction of a bad debt. Crompton made a good choice of an editor in
Peter Borthwick but it was Borthwick’s son, Algernon, who ultimately
raised the paper to great prosperity after having bought it on his own
account at a time, when it was still a somewhat speculative venture.
The _Morning Post_ through many vicissitudes had always preserved its
extremely aristocratic and fashionable connections, to which Borthwick
added tactful management, an eager desire for good and early news and a
prudent distrust of mere ability. Five years after his purchase of the
paper he had the courage to reduce the price to a penny in 1881, and in
a few years reaped so assured a reward that he was able to improve his
paper without damaging his property. At the present time it maintains a
high standard of intellectual ability in many departments and contains
more features of merit than any paper in its own rank. Borthwick became
Lord Glenesk and the paper is still in the possession of his family.
The editor is Mr. Gwynne and one of the noted men on its staff is Mr.
Spenser Wilkinson, Professor of Military History at Oxford.
There have come down to us from the great days of the penny press
two daily morning papers, whom the stress of competition has driven
into the more popular ranks, yet which fortunately preserve several
of their most valuable characteristics, as an inheritance of ancient
days. The _Daily Chronicle_ and _Daily News_ together in 1904, took
the final plunge to a halfpenny price, which will probably remain the
ultimate minimum, unless we invent something equivalent to the three
centimes price of one paper in Milan. The _Daily Chronicle_ was the
latest arrival among London daily morning papers, as it emerged from
the _Clerkenwell News_ in 1877 and for many years had a peculiarly
strong local hold on London. It represented at one time a milder form
of Liberalism, but just before the Boer war it surged up on a wave
of aggressive independence of traditional views. The editor at that
time, a brilliant journalist, Mr. H. W. Massingham, courageously held
opinions about an editor’s rights, which would in effect have made
newspaper proprietors rather more like mere annuitants, than some of
them cared to be. The assertion of his views by resigning his position
came at a moment when commercialism was not losing its hold on the
press and his paper came under a more moderate _régime_ during the
early stages of the war. After it became a halfpenny paper the _Daily
Chronicle_ adopted more popular features, shortening its articles and
increasing its headlines. But it has passed through its change very
reticently and this feature of considered progressiveness is carefully
preserved by the present editor, Mr. Robert Donald. It is the private
property of the Lloyd family.
The change in the _Daily News_ had much the same material effect on
its outward appearance. But the inward transformation was reversed.
Mr. (now Sir Edward) Cook in 1900 had taken an imperialist line about
the outbreak of the war, while the Cadbury family, who had acquired
the paper, took the opposite view. The effect was the same as with
the _Daily Chronicle_. The _Daily News_ now represents with much
ability the views of the left wing of the Liberal party, not at all
Socialist and quite distinct from the Labour Press. Its policy is
highly sentimental and inclined to a disinterested humanitarianism,
which opposes narrow national views. It somehow fails to exclude this
tinge of feeling from its presentation of news, particularly in foreign
affairs, and some people hold this to be a serious journalistic fault.
The _Daily News_ is a paper with a great past in spite of an
unfortunate beginning. It was started by Charles Dickens at the height
of his fame with some money from his hosts of friends and the more
weighty confidence of his publishers. As has happened since on Bouverie
Street account all the salaries in Fleet Street were raised. The story
has been told more than once and a contemporary professional view of
it was given by Russell of the _Times_. “The 21st of January, 1846,
came at last and there was a wild rush for the first number. At the
sight of the outer sheet, hope at once lighted up the gloom of Printing
House Square, the Strand and Shoe Lane. I am not sure that there were
not social rejoicings that night in the editorial chambers, which had
been so long beset by dread. Dickens had gathered round him newspaper
celebrities, critics in art, music and literature, correspondents,
politicians, statists. Yea, even the miscalled penny-a-liner was there.
But Dickens was not a good editor; he was the best reporter in London
and as a journalist he was nothing more. He had no political instincts
or knowledge and was ignorant of and indifferent to what are called
Foreign Affairs; indeed he told me himself that he never thought about
them till the Revolution of 1848. He had appointed as manager his
father, whom he is said to have immortalized as Micawber....” Forster,
who had been Dickens’ chief backer, took up the burden after three
months for another three months himself but it was Eyre Crowe, as
editor, and Charles Wentworth Dilke, as manager, who pulled the venture
round into smoother waters. Their great success was made in handling
the revolutions of 1848 and the complicated European disturbances
which followed. Similarly it was the success of Sir John Robinson in
dealing with the Franco-German war and the brilliant successes of
Archibald Forbes, which brought the _Daily News_ once more into the
front rank of papers. The present editor is Mr. A. G. Gardiner.
In the history of English newspapers the most astonishing sky-rocket
came with the advent of the _Daily Mail_ in 1896. Its immediate and
phenomenal success was one of those things, which can be explained
afterwards, but was little expected at the time. It was the final
result of a movement of great vitality in the press, which up to that
time had remained unnoticed. What that movement was we shall see, when
we come to discuss the various forms taken by our weekly press and
the remarkable revolution, which started in the provinces and bore
such astonishing fruit in London. The _Daily Mail_ had just time to
make an assured success in London and Manchester before the outbreak
of the African war, an event, which has had the effect of making a
fresh dichotomy in our politics and in all that depends primarily
on politics including newspapers and to some extent society. It led
to a new division between the sheep and the goats with a vehement
acceleration in the old-time controversy, as to which was which. In
that rearrangement of ideas all our newspapers bore their part but
to the scientific management of all the arts of improved combustion
of feelings and sentiments the _Daily Mail_ added an energy which
carried all before it. The use of the pens of Rudyard Kipling and of
an exceedingly able special writer, the late G. W. Steevens, lent
a striking advertisement to the popular passion but did not really
create it. The years 1899 and 1900 offered an opening to a newcomer
in journalism, which is not likely to be repeated. Here was a nation
which had been talking about war for forty-five years without seriously
experiencing it. Here was a journalism, not inefficient and not
unobservant of new tendencies, but inclined to believe that dignity was
profitable and that every wise man would look round twice before taking
any serious step. The result to those, who had the privilege of taking
advantage of it, was a commercial success at least equivalent to that
of old John Walter, a century before, more easily realized and with
possibly less far-reaching consequences. The editor is Mr. Marlowe and
the property with several other papers is substantially in the hands of
Lord Northcliffe and his associates.
With a brief reference to the _Daily Express_, the _Daily Mail’s_
strong popular rival on its own side in politics, to the financial
papers such as the _Financial Times_, and the latest addition to
London dailies, the _Financier_ and _Bullionist_, founded in 1870 and
London’s chief sporting daily, the _Sportsman_, owned by the Ashley
family, we must pass on to the evening papers of the Metropolis. At
one time London was very considerably behind the provinces in the
development of its popular evening papers largely owing to the great
cost of distribution and also because Londoners had always been more
addicted to the morning paper habit. But of late the _Evening News_
and the _Star_ have placed themselves in the front rank of successful
commercial exploitation. But they can hardly be said to exercise any
serious influence on opinion. This function is exercised however to a
very considerable degree by the penny evening papers, who secure the
attention of the commercial and professional classes on their way home
to dinner and often exercise an influence equal to that of the most
powerful morning daily. They are able also to use effectually all the
material and comment supplied by the morning press.
Of the four London penny evening papers the oldest is the _Globe_
(1803). In its young days it was Liberal and preponderantly literary.
It sheltered both Thomas Love Peacock and “Ingoldsby” Barham. At the
present day in common with the _Evening Standard_, once the _St.
James’s Gazette_ (1880), it more or less repeats the function of a
morning paper, as being chiefly devoted to news, with comment, as
a subordinate feature. The _Pall Mall Gazette_ is the spoilt child
of journalism. Founded in 1865 under the editorship of Frederick
Greenwood, it sprang at once to the position of being the darling
favourite of intellectual London, which it has never entirely lost in
spite of alternate periods of hideous sensationalism and considered
dulness, in spite of a complete reversal of politics and of every
imaginable transformation of “make-up” and journalistic devices. In
its early years it had a ring of noted contributors, such as George
Eliot, Charles Reade, Sir James Stephen, R. H. Hutton, James Hannay,
Anthony Trollope and Tom Hughes. Through the brother of the editor,
James Greenwood, and his adventures as an “Amateur Casual” it first
introduced to London the sensational realism, which was afterwards
carried by a later editor, W. T. Stead, to intolerable lengths. Besides
Stead, Lord Morley and Sir Edward Cook have been editors and Lord
Milner was once a member of its staff. It is now the property of Mr.
W. W. Astor and is edited by one of the most influential journalists
in London, Mr. Garvin. It is safe to say that no Conservative morning
paper wields more power in the councils of the party than the _Pall
Mall Gazette_.
In this respect it meets a worthy rival on the Liberal side in the
_Westminster Gazette_. Founded by Sir Edward Cook and the late Sir
George Newnes as an offshoot of the _Pall Mall Gazette_ in 1892, in
consequence of the staff of the latter having to go into the street,
because they could not manage a change of opinions with a change of
proprietorship, it has always held a very remarkable position in its
own party. It is the only penny daily paper in London, which supports
the Liberal party and government. Its editor, Mr. J. A. Spender, has
thus had a greatness thrust upon him, which few could consistently
maintain. What his paper has to say every day on current politics
receives an attention from the leader writers in provincial papers
of the next morning, the extent of which they might be reluctant
to acknowledge. The _Westminster Gazette_ may be classed decidedly
amongst those important things, which we are accustomed to call an
“Institution.” For so young a paper its success has been phenomenal
and one of the deep-rooted causes of its power is due to the fact,
that it is probably the only paper in the capital on the Liberal side
in politics, which is habitually read by an influential section of its
opponents.
Curiously enough the Labour press in the United Kingdom is still in its
infancy, which is less than one would expect in a country, where Trade
Unionism has been so strong. Hitherto it has been confined to one or
two weeklies, such as the _Clarion_, founded by Mr. Robert Blatchford,
a writer of unusual talent, the _Labour Leader_ and others. But within
the last year London has its Labour morning daily, the _Daily Herald_
and the _Daily Citizen_ is shortly to appear in Manchester.
When we come to consider the weekly and monthly periodicals of the
metropolis the number and variety of them is staggering. It is possible
to deal with them only in groups and mention expressly a few, which
must be taken to be not necessarily the most important ones but
those which are perhaps the best representatives of their class. In
dealing with illustrated journalism we have not yet altogether done
with the dailies, as London has three daily illustrated papers, the
_Daily Graphic_, a penny paper and two halfpenny papers the _Daily
Mirror_ and _Daily Sketch_. The rise of the last two to sensational
circulations is probably the most striking new feature in newspaperdom
since the meteoric success of the _Daily Mail_. The _Daily Mirror_
was accidentally a pioneer in this direction because it was actually
founded by the Harmsworth group with the intention of being a ladies’
daily paper and as such it was an absolute failure. But the publishers
with a commercial acumen that was almost uncanny swerved in their
design at once, dropped all the feminine part of it and continued
it as a picture newspaper of the simplest kind with results in a
bounding circulation, which is far from having reached its limit. This
phenomenon is intimately connected with the popular success of the
cinematograph theatres and points to a trait in the public of to-day,
which will probably go far before it is exhausted. It is due to the
intense modern desire to see things and judge them, each for oneself.
Written matter, views, opinions and criticisms are not desired by the
masses. There is a very marked desire for information but solely of
a positive kind. Men are inclined to shun guidance or leadership and
intensely desirous of forming first-hand judgments about everything.
Of weekly illustrated papers London has quite a number. There are
the pioneers of this class, the _Illustrated London News_, founded by
Herbert Ingram in 1842, the _Graphic_ (1869), the _Sketch_ (1892),
the _Sphere_ (1901), the _Tatler_, all three founded by Mr. Clement
Shorter, and _Country Life_. Of these the latter is the most original
in character, being concerned with the pursuits, sports and residences
of the country gentry. By throwing open to the middle-classes of the
towns all the inner history of the life and manners of a secluded class
it has achieved a remarkable success. The illustrated press in England
has reached a very considerable standard of technical excellence in
reproduction and shows great ingenuity in obtaining pictures and
photographs; but it has never succeeded in obtaining reading matter
to hold its own against the pictures. At one time it was markedly
ahead of foreign effort in the same sphere, when there was little else
abroad but _L’Illustration_, _Ueber Land und Meer_, and _Harper’s_
and _Collier’s Weeklies_. This is hardly true at the present moment;
the French and German illustrations now surpass ours in technical
excellence and for reading matter the Philadelphia _Saturday Evening
Post_ is unexcelled. The circulation of the latter is probably four or
five times as great as all the English illustrated weeklies combined.
Some of the reproaches to which the British daily press is perhaps
open, for instance, with regard to the meagre amount of space
devoted to matters of purely scientific or intellectual interest,
as compared with the German press, or as to the somewhat easy-going
critical standards which prevail in their treatment of literary and
artistic questions, may be redeemed by urging the merits, variety
and influence of our important and serious weekly periodicals.
No country in the world has such a diversity in this respect nor
maintains so consistently a high standard. Whereas a German requires
his most serious interests to be taken care of in his daily paper, an
Englishman is more indulgent because he knows that his hobbies and
specialities can be properly nourished by a suitable weekly paper, of
which we have all kinds. In finance and banking we have the _Statist_
(1878); for general economic questions and the review of investments
the _Economist_ (1843). In the special British interests in sports,
games and country pursuits generally we have that quite unique organ
the _Field_, founded in 1853. This project was originally started by
Webster, an actor, but not carried by him to any degree of success. It
came into the hands of Mr. Sergeant Cox, who besides being a leading
lawyer, was something of a publishing genius, for he not only carried
the _Field_ to success, but also established prosperously the _Queen_,
the chief ladies’ paper and the _Bazaar_, as well. The _Field_ ranks
as an authority in international sport and has a following far outside
this country. Its present editor is Mr. T. A. Cook.
In the realm of general culture and literary criticism the British
“heavy weeklies” deservedly stand very high. But it is in accordance
with the serious nature of the English and Scotch genius that literary
questions are dealt with not by themselves alone but are tinged with
either a political or religious spirit, thus dividing their readers
into watertight compartments. The first of these in point of dignity
is the _Athenæum_, founded in 1828, with which are associated the
well-known names of the elder Dilke, Hepworth Dixon, Norman Maccoll,
and Mr. J. C. Francis. Of higher literary quality may be ranked the
_Times Literary Supplement_, which although nominally a part of the
_Times_ is practically an independent weekly under the charge of Mr.
B. L. Richmond. As _Literature_ under the hands of H. D. Traill it
attained at once a very high standard, which has been steadily raised
without any falling away. The reviews in its columns have the widest
range of interest and learning and they are surpassed in serious
excellence by no other journal in the world.
A very famous name revived appears in the _Spectator_ which was founded
in 1828 by a group of Radicals round Joseph Hume. Its great days of
literary and political influence date from the combined control of the
paper by R. H. Hutton and Meredith Townsend. At the present moment it
is probably more widely known outside the bounds of the kingdom than
any other of our weeklies. Under the editorship of Mr. J. St. Loe
Strachey it combines moderate Conservative views with a strong support
of Free Trade. Another famous but more modern name is the _Saturday
Review_, a paper which at one time employed more brilliant pens than
were ever elsewhere united in one cause in England. In its golden days
it was served together by the late Marquis of Salisbury, Sir Henry
Maine, Goldwin Smith, Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Walter Pollock.
It has always supported an extreme Conservatism. A newer review of
the same type but even more pronouncedly political than either of
the others is the _Nation_, which was founded by Mr. Massingham in
1907 to fill a gap made in Liberal journalism by the termination of
the _Speaker_, whose place it assumed. It is conducted with intense
seriousness and great ability and in spite of the fact that its
intentions are mainly social and political, the literary standard
maintained is very high. It would be impossible to omit the insertion
here of one excellent little literary weekly, which circulates widely
at the price of one penny, _T.P.’s Weekly_. Humble as it appears by
the side of its sixpenny contemporaries it yet probably does as much
to keep up a genuine and popular taste for literature as the best of
them. The editor, Mr. T. P. O’Connor is one of the most experienced and
versatile journalists in the kingdom.
Closely allied to the literary and political reviews are the religious
papers, which are of all prices and connections but resemble one
another in this, that, after pursuing their primary object of
representing a section of religious thought, they are to a considerable
extent also literary reviews. The paper, which is most obviously the
connecting link between the two classes is the _British Weekly_.
Comparatively a late comer into the field and originally founded to
lend its support to Nonconformity in general, yet the extraordinarily
wide and well equipped mind of its editor, Sir Robertson Nicoll, has
elevated it almost to the status of a literary magazine. Coming to
more specifically religious papers we have first of all the _Guardian_
(1846), the official representative of Anglican views and interests.
Its former editor (1878-81) Mr. D. C. Lathbury raised it up to be a
power in the country, which has been continued by the Rev. Walter
Hobhouse to the present time. Since 1905 it has been a penny paper. The
High Church party is represented by the _Church Times_ (1863) and the
Evangelical fringe, which runs into Nonconformity, by the _Christian
World_ (1857) founded by James Clarke, whose son, Mr. Herbert Clarke
is the present editor. This is largely an independent journal, whose
readers are drawn to a great extent from those both inside and outside
of the Church. The _Christian_ (1870) is still further advanced in
the Low Church direction, as its old name, the _Revival_ testifies.
Liberal views in religious matters are supported by the _Christian
Commonwealth_, whose present editor, Mr. Albert Dawson had been
secretary to Dr. Joseph Parker. It has come to a great extent under
the influence of the Rev. R. J. Campbell. The Roman Church in Great
Britain has a very important organ, _The Tablet_ (1840), which, when
it was founded by Frederick Lucas was to some extent independent and
rather advanced in thought for those times. Since 1868 it has become
official by passing into the hands of Cardinal Vaughan and it is now
controlled by Cardinal Bourne. Its present editor is Mr. J. Snead-Cox
and well-known contributors are Mr. Wilfrid Ward, Monsignor Benson,
Mr. W. S. Lilly, Mr. Hilaire Belloc, Alice Meynell, and Katharine
Tynan. The _Jewish Chronicle_ (1841) fulfils an obvious mission. It
attracts attention, as a periodical, by the singular feature of adding
to the time-honoured classification of Births, Marriages and Deaths,
also Betrothals, Forthcoming Marriages and In Memoriam notices, the
distinction between numbers four and five in the series being original.
The articles, while written in a religious spirit, cover a wide ground
of interest and exhibit no narrow prejudices. The editor is Mr. Israel
Davis. The most singular of the religious papers comes last, the _War
Cry_, which circulates to the extent of about 300,000 weekly among
members of the Salvation Army at home and about the same number in
twenty-four foreign editions abroad. As it accepts no advertisements,
it has to depend entirely on sales for its revenue.
The professional and technical press of Great Britain is too
complicated and extensive for any one mind to grasp. It includes
a myriad of small papers catering for little pockets of trade and
others which in their own sphere have all the authority of the _Times_
itself. They obtain support from an amount of advertising very much
larger in proportion to their text than the ordinary dailies or
general weeklies so that they sometimes constitute properties of great
value. To begin with the medical profession the earliest surviving
paper devoted to this subject is the _Lancet_ (1823) whose story
merits a little digression. Its founder was Dr. Thomas Wakley, a man
of unusual character and resolution, who in the ordinary course of
events would probably have lived an uneventful and successful life as
a general practitioner. But he was brought painfully in touch with
public events in a sufficiently odd way to justify repetition. He was
still a young man at the time of the Cato Street conspiracy for which
Arthur Thistlewood was condemned and hanged. Now the executioner of
Thistlewood conceived the dramatic idea of cutting off his head and
holding it up to the public saying, “This is the head of a traitor.”
This incident had a singular reaction on Wakley. He was then a doctor
attending at St. Thomas’s Hospital and for some unknown reason a
popular rumour, which spread among the roughs with whom Thistlewood
was a hero, attributed this decapitation to a St. Thomas’s doctor,
quite unjustly. At any rate Dr. Wakley was set upon one night and badly
treated by some unknown scoundrels, his house was burned down and his
practice was ruined. Not only that, but his story of his wrongs was
hardly believed and he had to undertake a difficult lawsuit in order
to recover his insurance money. Wakley was greatly distressed and
angered at his misfortune and owing to his friendship with Cobbett
and other journalists turned his mind to the press and he planned and
founded the _Lancet_. This has come through to very substantial success
after a singularly stormy start in life. In one year he had to stand
eighteen libel actions but he won them all. As an illustration of the
way journalism was looked upon in those early days we may quote from a
report of one of Sir Astley Cooper’s lectures in which he specifically
referred to the _Lancet_ and stated that though he could not prevent
the report of his lectures he had succeeded in inducing the editor to
keep his name out of the paper, for, he said, “I felt myself disgraced
and degraded by my name forever appearing in the press.” There are
not many men, who would echo those sentiments now. The editor of the
_Lancet_ is Dr. Squire Sprigge, who has written Wakley’s life.
Another later rival in the same field is the _British Medical Journal_,
the official organ of the British Medical Association, a body founded
as far back as 1832 under the name of the Provincial and Surgical
Association by Sir Charles Hastings. In 1856 the Association took its
present title and issued its journal as a regular medical organ. The
connection with its parent organization lends considerable weight to
its opinions and adds to its technical excellence but may to some
extent limit its independence in discussing questions affecting merely
the interests of the profession.
The legal profession is not calculated to support a press of its own
as advertising is not encouraged and there is no general trade or
commerce attached to it. For the reports of cases they depend on the
efficient rendering of the _Times Law Reports_ and for special legal
points on the _Solicitor’s Journal_. The engineering profession is so
closely allied with one of the most powerful and wealthy industries of
the country, that it supports a number of wealthy papers. Of these the
oldest is now the _Engineer_ founded in 1856 by Edward Charles Healey
and still in the hands of the same family. The present editor is Mr.
L. Pendred. _Engineering_ was founded ten years later and it is edited
in conjunction by Messrs. Maw and Raworth. The two earliest electrical
papers are the _Electrical Review_ (1872) and the _Electrician_ (1878).
Besides these are many others both weekly and monthly of which perhaps
the most remarkable is a workman’s paper, the _Mechanical World_
published at 1d. in Manchester. Allied to these and overlapping the
engineering trade are the _Iron and Coal Trades Review_, the _Hardware
Journal_ and the _Ironmonger_, the chief journal of the metal trades.
The latter was founded in 1859 by the old family firm of Morgan Bros.,
who are proprietors also of the _Chemist and Druggist_, the _Grocer_
and other papers. The present editor is Mr. A. C. Maygis. Perhaps the
oldest of all technical journals is the _Mining Journal_, founded
in 1835. Another old established property dealing with an entirely
different line is the _Gardener’s Chronicle_ (1841) founded by, among
others, Sir Joseph Paxton, Dilke and the printer of _Punch_, Bradbury.
The first editor was Dr. Lindley and famous contributors have been
besides Paxton, Sir Joseph and Sir William Hooker, Berkeley, Sir
Thistleton Dyer and Thomas Moore, the curator of the Chelsea physic
garden. A new arrival among trade papers, but a very wealthy one, is
the _Draper’s Record_. This property had an early precarious existence
until it came into the hands of the late D. G. Macrae, who is said to
have given it so many weeks to get to the stage of making a profit,
which it did in the very last week allowed to it. Its income now runs
into five figures.
With regard to our one established humorous journal _Punch_, founded
in the same year, 1841, as the _Gardener’s Chronicle_ and by the same
printer, it is as impossible to say anything new about it as to leave
it out. Famous men without number have written and drawn for it, of
whom I may mention, Mark Lemon, Douglas Jerrold, John Leech, Sir John
Tenniel, Charles Keene and Du Maurier. The present editor, Mr. Owen
Seaman, is a supreme master of polished and pointed verse.
After this brief and inadequate account of the technical press we must
turn a moment’s attention to the general weeklies of London, which
have the largest circulations in the world and represent the really
popular tastes of the clerk, the artisan and the growing boy. Their
history is peculiarly interesting because it includes the origin of the
most vital and astonishing revolution that our press, at any rate,
has ever seen. But before I come to describe this revolution we must
notice first the three or four metropolitan weeklies, which supply
the news, mostly of criminal or sporting matters, to the seven and a
half millions, who live in and around London. The oldest is _Lloyd’s
Weekly News_, established in 1842, which has reached a circulation of
one and a quarter millions in round figures. The _News of the World_
(1843) was at first a family paper published at threepence with a
large circulation for those times, which fell away under old-fashioned
management almost to nothing. But it came into the hands of two able
business men, the proprietors of the _Cardiff Mail_, the late Lascelles
Carr and Sir George Riddell, who modernized it, not without some loss
of sedateness, and raised its circulation to two and a quarter millions
a week, in all probability the largest in the world. _Reynold’s Weekly
News_ (1852), an extremely Radical popular organ and the _People_,
allied with the _Globe_, each have a large following. Finally the
_Sunday Chronicle_ of Manchester is the best representative of some
very widely circulated papers in the provinces with issues running up
to a million in many cases.
The revolution in the English press, which has extended to every corner
of journalism, except the “heavy weeklies,” originally started in
the provinces and spread to London with three rather insignificant
gossipy and anecdotic penny weeklies. But the causes of the movement
were very far-reaching and may be said to have had their true origin in
Forster’s Education Act of 1870. This measure brought into existence
as new readers an enormous number of immature minds ready for the
simplest information and oldest stories, as yet quite unsophisticated
and disinclined to raffishness or vice. The older newspaper proprietors
utterly failed to see the growth of these new and potential readers and
made no effort to meet their needs. In fact one may say that it was
almost impossible for journalists of the old school for the first time
to cater for the untrained ineptitude of people who were equipped with
mobilized wits and eager minds. The task was undertaken by entirely new
men.
The pioneer of this movement was the late Sir George Newnes, who made
the fortunate venture of starting _Tit-Bits_ in Manchester in 1880.
The name exactly describes the paper. The next in order was _Answers_,
started in 1888 by the two young brothers Harmsworth, one of whom is
now a peer and the other a knight. This paper was originally intended
to contain answers to correspondents but, as no one corresponded, the
paper had to become something else, so it became a fair imitation
of _Tit-Bits_. The third _Pearson’s Weekly_, was begun by C. Arthur
Pearson, who was for some time Newnes’s manager in London.
If the movement had stopped there, it would not have had an important
influence on the British press. But these pioneers were all men of
exceptional ability, activity and insight. Their rapid success gave
them command of great sums of money and the power of obtaining more
of it from the public. They had moreover an inside view of the public
mind, which enabled them to see, not only what the public mind required
at the moment but what it was likely to want next year. Because it must
be borne in mind that the newly-invented public of the Education Act,
which was satisfied with _Tit-Bits_ in the eighties wanted something
more in the next decade and a further advance in the new century. So
the houses of Newnes, Pearson and Harmsworth became great publishing
firms bringing out new periodicals, books and ultimately daily papers
in great profusion. All three firms came to considerable fortune and
left their mark on the daily press. Newnes established successfully
the _Westminster Gazette_, Mr. Pearson the _Daily Express_ and the
Harmsworths the _Daily Mail_. The latter house has obtained the most
striking and comprehensive success. Their enterprises have divided
themselves into two groups. One, the original proprietors of _Answers_
consisting of Lord Northcliffe and his brother Sir Harold Harmsworth,
has produced a series of successful but trivial papers and has overlaid
on that a popular educational publishing system on a grand scale, which
is of much greater benefit to the public than is usually recognized.
Their second venture in conjunction with Mr. Kennedy Jones embraces the
_Evening News_, the _Daily Mail_, the _Daily Mirror_ and other papers.
This energetic, self-assertive and ever-increasing popular press
excites in many old-fashioned readers something akin to a disgust,
that is quite needless. These good folk should recognize that what is
suited to a million readers can hardly cater also for the tastes of a
restricted cultivated class. If the great American circulation-monger
Hearst comes over to England, as rumours repeatedly assert, it will be
apparent at once how much better the _Daily Mail_ is, than it need be.
Perhaps the only branch of the weekly press, which has not yet found a
niche in our Valhalla, is the group of ladies’ papers. The _doyenne_
of these is certainly the _Queen_, started by Serjeant Cox and more
or less followed in style by the others, which devote approximately
the same proportion of space to illustrations of fashions and brides
and titled hostesses. As they are mainly high-priced, well-printed
journals appealing only to wealthy readers, they are doomed to a
fatal mediocrity and give a male reader, who should imagine that
women read nothing else, a painful impression of their intellectual
status. Happily there is no reason to suppose that this is the case.
Besides the _Queen_, we have the _Lady’s Pictorial_ (1880); the _Lady_
(1885); _Woman_ (1889); the _Gentlewoman_ (1890); and the _Ladies’
Field_ (1898). On the other hand lady journalists, writing for papers
of all kinds including the leading dailies, have already made a very
considerable mark on our press. In some respects they have shown a
greater aptitude for this calling than men, but they are not able to
get about the country to all kinds of places so well as men and they
cannot be expected nor even asked to endure the manifold hardships
often required from reporters and correspondents.