[774] In 1696, the only newspapers were weekly; and the first daily paper appeared in the reign of Anne. Compare Simmonds's Essay on Newspapers, in Journal of Statist. Society, vol. iv. p. 113, with Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. i. pp. 167, 175, vol. ii. p. 90; and Nichols's Lit. Anec. vol. iv. p. 80. In 1710, they, instead of merely communicating news, as heretofore, began to take part in ‘the discussion of political topics’ (Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 443); and, as this change had been preceded a very few years by the introduction of cheap political pamphlets (see a curious passage in Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. ii. p. 29), it became evident that a great movement was at hand in regard to the diffusion of such inquiries. Within twenty years after the death of Anne, the revolution was completed; and the press, for the first time in the history of the world, was made an exponent of public opinion. The earliest notice of this new power which I have met in parliament, is in a speech delivered by Danvers, in 1738; which is worth quoting, both because it marks an epoch, and because it is characteristic of that troublesome class to which the man belonged. ‘But I believe,’ says this distinguished legislator,—‘but I believe the people of Great Britain are governed by a power that never was heard of, as a supreme authority, in any age or country before. This power, sir, does not consist in the absolute will of the prince, in the direction of parliament, in the strength of an army, in the influence of the clergy, neither, sir, is it a petticoat government: but, sir, it is the government of the press. The stuff which our weekly newspapers are filled with, is received with greater reverence than acts of parliament; and the sentiments of one of these scribblers have more weight with the multitude than the opinion of the best politician in the kingdom.’ Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 448.
[775] This great contest was brought to a close in 1771 and 1772; when, as Lord Campbell says, ‘the right of publishing parliamentary debates was substantially established.’ Campbell's Chancellors, vol. v. p. 511, vol. vi. p. 90. For further information respecting this important victory, see Cooke's Hist. of Party, vol. iii. pp. 179-184; Almon's Correspond. of Wilkes, 1805, vol. v. p. 63; Stephens's Mem. of Tooke, vol. i. pp. 329–351; Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. v. p. 290; and, on its connexion with Junius's Letters, see Forster's Life of Goldsmith, vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.
George III., always consistent and always wrong, strenuously opposed this extension of the popular rights. In 1771, he wrote to Lord North: ‘It is highly necessary that this strange and lawless method of publishing debates in the papers should be put a stop to. But is not the House of Lords the best court to bring such miscreants before; as it can fine, as well as imprison, and has broader shoulders to support the odium of so salutary a measure?’ App. to Mahon, vol. v. p. xlviii.; and note in Walpole's George III. vol. iv. p. 280, where the words, ‘in the papers,’ are omitted; but I copy the letter, as printed by Lord Mahon. In other respects, both versions are the same; so that we now know the idea George III. had of what constituted a miscreant.
[776] Lord John Russell, in his work on the History of the English Constitution, says: ‘Dr. Jebb, and after him Mr. Cartwright, broached the theory of personal representation;’ but this appears to be a mistake, since the theory is said to have been first put forward by Cartwright, in 1776. Compare Russell on the Constitution, 1821, pp. 240, 241, with Life and Corresp. of Cartwright, 1826, vol. i. pp. 91, 92. A letter in the Life of Dr. Currie, vol. ii. pp. 307–314, shows the interest which even sober and practical men were beginning to feel in the doctrine before the end of the century.
[777] On this I have a philological remark of some interest,—namely, that there is reason to believe that ‘the word “independence,” in its modern acceptation,’ does not occur in our language before the early part of the eighteenth century. See Hare's Guesses at Truth, 2nd series, 1848, p. 262. A similar change, though at a later period, took place in France. See the observations on the word ‘individualisme,’ in Tocqueville, Démocratie en Amérique, vol. iv. p. 156; and in the later work, by the same author, L'Ancien Régime, Paris, 1856, pp. 148, 149.
[778] Archbishop Whately (Dangers to Christian Faith, pp. 76, 77) says: ‘Neither the attacks on our religion, nor the evidences in its support, were, to any great extent, brought forward in a popular form, till near the close of the last century. On both sides, the learned (or those who professed to be such) seem to have agreed in this,—that the mass of the people were to acquiesce in the decision of their superiors, and neither should, nor could, exercise their own minds on the question.’ This is well put, and quite true; and should be compared with the complaint in Wakefield's Life of Himself, vol. ii. p. 21; Nichols's Lit. Anec. of the Eighteenth Century, vol. viii. p. 144; and Hodgson's Life of Bishop Porteus, pp. 73, 74, 122, 125, 126. See also a speech by Mansfield, in 1781 (Parl. Hist. vol. xxii. p. 265), when an attempt was made to put down the ‘Theological Society.’ The whole debate is worth reading; not on account of its merits, but because it supplies evidence of the prevailing spirit.
[779] Coleridge (Lit. Remains, vol. i. pp. 230 seq.) has made some interesting remarks on the vicissitudes of English style; and he justly observes, p. 238, that, ‘after the Revolution, the spirit of the nation became much more commercial than it had been before; a learned body, or clerisy, as such, gradually disappeared; and literature in general began to be addressed to the common, miscellaneous public.’ He goes on to lament this change; though, in that, I disagree with him. See also The Friend, vol. i. p. 19, where he contrasts the modern style with ‘the stately march and difficult evolutions’ of the great writers of the seventeenth century. Compare, on this alteration, the preface to Nader Shah, in Works of Sir W. Jones, vol. v. p. 544. See also, in Harford's Life of Burgess, pp. 40, 41, a curious letter from Monboddo, the last of our really great pedants, mourning over this characteristic of modern composition. He terms it contemptuously a ‘short cut of a style;’ and wishes to return to ‘the true ancient taste,’ with plenty of ‘parentheses!’
The truth is, that this movement was merely part of that tendency to approximate the different classes of society which was first clearly seen in the eighteenth century, and which influenced not only the style of author, but also their social habits. Hume observes that, in the ‘last age,’ learned men had separated themselves too much from the world; but that, in his time, they were becoming more ‘conversible.’ Essay V., in Hume's Philosophical Works, vol. iv. pp. 539, 540. That ‘philosophers’ were growing men of the world, is also noticed in a curious passage in Alciphron, dial. i., in Berkeley's Works, vol. i. p. 312; and, respecting the general social amalgamation, see a letter to the Countess of Bute, in 1753, in Works of Lady Mary Montagu, edit. 1803, vol. iv. pp. 194, 195. As to the influence of Addison, who led the way in establishing the easy, and therefore democratic, style, and who, more than any single writer, made literature popular, compare Aikin's Life of Addison, vol. ii. p. 65, with Turner's Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 7. Subsequently a reaction was attempted by Johnson, Gibbon, and Parr; but this, being contrary to the spirit of the age, was short-lived.
[780] And the servility was, for the most part, well paid; indeed, rewarded far more than it was worth. During the sixteenth, seventeenth, and early part of the eighteenth century, a sum of money was invariably presented to the author in return for his dedication. Of course, the grosser the flattery, the larger the sum. On the relation thus established between authors and men of rank, and on the eagerness with which even eminent writers looked to their patrons for gratuities, varying from 40s. to 100l., see Drake's Shakespeare and his Times, 1817, 4to. vol. ii. p. 225; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. pp. 194, 309; Whiston's Memoirs, p. 203; Nichols's Illustrations, vol. ii. p. 709; Harris's Life of Hardwicke, vol. iii. p. 35; Bunbury's Life of Hanmer, p. 81. Compare a note in Burton's Diary, vol. iii. p. 52; and as to the importance of fixing on a proper person to whom to dedicate, see Ellis's Letters Lit. Men, pp. 231–234; and the matter-of-fact remark in Bishop Newton's Life, p. 14; also, Hughes's Letters, edit. 1773, vol. iii. p. xxxi. appendix.
About the middle of the eighteenth century was the turning-point of this deplorable condition; and Watson, for instance, in 1769, laid it down as a rule, ‘never to dedicate to those from whom I expected favours.’ Watson's Life of Himself, vol. i. p. 54. So, too, Warburton, in 1758, boasts that his dedication was not, as usual, ‘occupied by trifles or falsehoods.’ See his letter, in Chatham Correspond. vol. i. p. 315. Nearly at the same period, the same change was effected in France, where D'Alembert set the example of ridiculing the old custom. See Brougham's Men of Letters, vol. ii. pp. 439, 440; Correspond. de Madame Dudeffand, vol. ii. p. 148; and Œuvres de Voltaire, vol. xl. p. 41, vol. lxi. p. 285.