ny
convictions for libel, and its dummies were frequently imprisoned, but
they never betrayed Hook, who retained the editorship until his death in
1841. Somewhere about this time _The Britannia_, a Conservative journal,
of a few years' standing, was incorporated with it. It had meanwhile
considerably moderated its tone, and at the present day enjoys a fair
circulation among steady-going people--chiefly country gentlemen, old
ladies, and parsons--who obstinately cling to Tory principles.

_John Bull_ was not the only newspaper which was prolific in libels, and
perhaps at no time were scandalous attacks upon public and private
persons more common. Mr. Freemantle, writing to the Marquis of
Buckingham, in 1820, says:

'The press is completely open to treason, sedition, blasphemy, and
falsehood, with impunity.... I do not know whether you see
Cobbett's _Independent Whig_, and many other papers now circulating
most extensively, and which are dangerous much beyond anything I
can describe.'

This is a sweeping censure, but, allowing for a little personal
irritation, natural enough under the circumstances--he had been
lampooned himself--is true of a great portion of the press. The supply
was regulated by the demand, and the character of the wares purveyed
depended upon the wants of the market. Editors found that scandal was
eagerly devoured by their subscribers, and they did not therefore
hesitate or scruple to gratify the prevailing tastes of the day. But the
better class of papers were not able to keep clear of the law of libel,
even though they did not condescend to pander to the vitiated tastes of
the multitude. Many of them had to sustain actions for merely reporting
proceedings before the police magistrates and in the law courts, and
many a rascal solaced himself for the disagreeables attending a
preliminary examination at the police court for a criminal offence, by a
verdict in his behalf in a civil action against any newspaper that had
been bold enough to print a report of the proceedings. This kind of
action originated from a ruling of Lord Ellenborough, that it was
'libellous to publish the preliminary examination before a magistrate
previously to committing a man for trial or holding him to bail for any
offence with which he is charged, the tendency of such a publication
being to prejudice the minds of the jurymen against the accused, and to
deprive him of a fair trial.' This monstrous and