Part 15

_‘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. Phœnix-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--

The Literary; Political; Commercial; Philosophical; Critical; Theatrical; Fashionable; Humorous; Witty, &c.

‘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 of 24 £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.

£4 4 0 £26 18 6 2,000 Stamps at 2d., deducting discount 16 0 0 20 4 0 ------- Profits £6 14 6 =======

‘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.’