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.