Detailed Record

John Bull;

vol 1 no 1, 17 Dec 1820 - vol 72 no 3739, 16 Jul 1892//

London,Middlesex

Editor:

George Edward Biber (Rev.)
John Bull
Henry Fox Cooper (1845 - 1846)
Samuel Carter Hall (sub-editor 1837)
Theodore Hook (1820 - 1841)
Samuel Phillips (1845 - 1846)
Charles G. Prowett (1865)
Shackell
George H. Smith
Godfrey W. Turner (1855)

Proprietor:

Thomas Arrowsmith
R.H. Barham
T. Haynes Bayley
E.A. Fitzroy (1874)
Theodore Hook
Samuel Philips (1852)
Edward Shackell (? - 1837)
William Shackle
James Smith

Publisher:

John Cooper Burney (17 Dec 1837 - c.1860s)
E.R. Johnson (1876)
Edward Shackell (27 Jan 1822 - 10 Dec 1837)
R.T. Weaver (17 Dec 1820 - 20 Jan 1822)
Cooper Whitfield

Printer:

Thomas Dixon (1822)
E.D. Maddick and Co (1892)
Edward Shackell
William Shackell
Thomas Robert Weaver

Contributors:

Thomas Haynes Bailey
Richard Dalton Barham
Thomas Ingoldsby Barham (Rev.)
W. Bridle
Samuel Carter Hall
John Wilson Croker
John Hook (Dr.)pseudo Fitz-Harding)
H. Hunt
William Maginn
Paul Potter
Samuel Rogers
Mackenzie Edward Charles Walcott (Rev.)

Names:

Thomas Ingoldsby

Size:

41cm, 8pp (1820); 44cm, 16pp (1822); 39cm, 416pp (1833); 38cm, 16pp (1892)

Price:

7d (1820, 1822, 1831, 1833); 5d, 5½d st (1822); 5d, 6d st (1856); 6d (1836 - 1846); 5d (1876)

Circulation:

750 (1820); 1,827 (1820); 9,000 (1820); 10,000 (no 6); 12,000 (no 12); 11,560 (1825); 16,000 (1855); 3,000 (1870)

Frequency:

weekly (Sun 1820; Sat 1822, 1846, 1876)

Illustration:

engravings (title page only)

Issued by:

Church of England, The

Indexing:

index/vol

Departments:

editorials, advertisements, King and constitution, London gazette of last night, provincial/foreign/law intelligence, Indian and colonial, Tuesday's gazette, lies misrepresentations &c., original poetry/correspondence, theatrical review, police, accidents and offences, ship news, London markets, b/m/d (1820); foreign intelligence, political and personal, literary and other notes, reviews, correspondence, ecclesiastical, law proceedings, the court, latest news, money market (1822); London theatres &c., photographic supplements, arts and letters, society, chit chat (1892); advertisements, commercial/war-office/police report, bankruptcies, law/miscellaneous religious/foreign intelligence, Ireland, common council miscellaneous, London sessions, meetings, correspondence, fair play, theatre, b/m/d, London markets, ship/foreign/colonial/domestic news, the Court, fashionable world, the Church, universities, special notice of Church Unions, Education Question, literary reviews, naval and military affairs, proceedings of Parliament and of the Meetings of Public Bodies and Societies, police cases, general news of the week, court reports, witty poems

Orientation:

Christian (1820 - 1833); anti-Catholic (1829); Tory; conservative (1846); high church (1847, 1937)

Sources:

Burnand, “Mr. Punch”: 96-105, 255-65, 390-7.; Canney, Catalogue of Economic Literature.; Cooper, Dictionary of Contemporaries.; DNB viii, p.971-973.; Ellis III, Ted R. "Victorian Comic Journals." British Literary Magazines. Ed. Alvin Sullivan (1984), v.3, Appendix G.; Grant, James. "The Metropolitan Weekly and Provincial Press." The History of the Newspaper Press. vol 3. London: George Routledge and Sons, [1871].; Jack, Scottish Newspaper Directory.; May, Frederick L. Press Guide. London: May, 1876. p.8.; Mitchell, “Ephemeral Journalism”: 81-92.; Mitchell's Newspaper Press Directory 1846, 1847, 1851.; Sper, Felix. Periodical Press of London, Theatrical & Literary. Boston: F.W. Faxon Co., 1937.; Sutherland Longman Companion to Victorian Fiction.; Uffelman, 1992.

Histories:

Altholz, Josef L. The Religious Press in Britain, 1760-1900. Greenwood Press: 1989.; VPR (11:2, p.47; 14:4, p.159; 20:1, pp.31-33).; Altick, English Common Reader.; Aspinall, Politics and the Press.; Barham, R.H. Dalton. Life and Remains of Theodore Hook. New and rev. ed. London, 1877.; Barker, Hannah. Newspapers, Politics, and English Society, 1695-1855. Harlow: Longman, 2000.; Bostick, Darwin F. in Sullivan, British Literary Magazines, vol 2, pp.203-207.; Cantor, "Reporting the Great Exhibition".; Elwin, Malcolm. Victorian Wallflowers: A Panoramic Survey of the Popular Literary Periodicals. New York: Kennikat Press, 1934.; Fox-Bourne, H.R. English Newspapers. vol 2. New York: Russell & Russell, 1966.; Gates, Leigh Hunt.; Graham, British Literary Periodicals, p.387.; Gray, “Victorian Scandalous Journalism”.; Herd, March of Journalism.; Jones, Aled. Powers of the Press: Newspapers, Power and the Public in Nineteenth-Century England. England: Scolar Press, 1996.; Jones, Stanley. "Hazlitt and John Bull: A Neglected Letter". Review of English Studies. 17 (1866): 163-170.; Timperley, C.H. Encyclopaedia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote. New York: Garland Publishing Company, 1977.; Thrall, Rebellious Fraser.; Rees, Dr. Thomas. Reminiscences of Literary London from 1779-1853; with interesting anecdotes of publishers, authors and book auctioneers of that period, &c.. Detroit, Michigan: Gale Research Company, 1969.

Comments:

Motto: "For God, the King, and the People!" (no 1, title page).
The subtitle "for God, the Sovereign, and the People" was added 25 Jun 1837-16 Jul 1892. "and Britannia" was added 19 Apr 1856 and then dropped in the 1860s.
Professed loyalty to the Crown, the scepter and the Bible (Jones, Aled. Powers of the Press, p.34).
A nominal editor was appointed, Shackell, who was paid to take the libel suits and imprisonments Hook would otherwise suffer (Herd, p.200).
"Founded by friends of George IV to counter attacks made on him and his Tory ministers by sympathizers with Queen Caroline and by Whigs" (Gray, D.J., p.319).
A "scandalous Tory weekly paper" (Aspinall).
"Primarily designed as a counterblast to the popular agitation in favour of Caroline."
Charlotte Bronte described John Bull as "it is a high Tory, very violent...anti-Catholic...advised their readers against taking any extra-parliamentary action, apart from petitioning" (Barker, Hannah; p.117-8, p.203,204).
A Wednesday edition John Bull's Magazine and Literary Recorder was published in 1824.
"A bold, vigorous, gallant champion of its cause ever ready for contest, and rather inclined to the antagonistic, than to the argumentative: like one of warm feelings carried by their force beyond mere reasoning- -prompt to the encounter animated, ardent, and impassioned, appealing to feelings as warm as its own. It is manly, downright, straightforward full of patriotic 'English' sentiments. Battles bravely for the old orthodoxy of Church and State is faithful to its party encouraging no new schools either in politics or religion is violently opposed to combinations and leagues of recent rise. Adopts a broad, bold, determined species of advocacy admirably adapted to country gentlemen, and is partial to the solidities of politics (as they to port) rather than to lighter themes eschewing subtleties and rarely concentrating its energy into the bitterness of sarcasm delighting rather in the full, free, frank effusions eminently characteristic of the old 'English' style" (Mitchell's, 1846).
"It excels in declamation, sometimes lively, sometimes energetic, as occasion may require; and hence it is a favourite with readers who are adverse to its politics, or neutral in their own" (Mitchell's, 1847).
Altholz calls this "a 'Church newspaper' but too scurrilous to be called a religious newspaper" (23).
"[T]he whole [is] carefully digested and condensed, and methodically arranged for the facility of reference....A peculiar and novel feature in the John Bull is a weekly SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC PRESS, giving a critical analysis of the leading columns of the daily journals, and enabling those who have not the time or the opportunity of reading the various Papers, to make themselves acquainted with the views expressed upon the questions of the day by the organs of public opinion" (Advertisement in Mitchell's, 1851).
"Arrangements were made to establish a paper 'in which a thorough sifting of, and investigation into, the life and position of every individual who appeared in the queen's [Caroline] society should be published, and every flaw in the reputation, every weak point in the family history of her adherents, duly brought to light'" (Fox-Bourne, p.5).
"Similar in tone and content to the Arcadian....The paper remained politically conservative and ultra-Protestant, supporting the Orange cause and opposing Catholic Emancipation. In time, the paper developed a special connection with High Church and Tory clergy. In its last years, Mrs. Oliphant noted that John Bull, once so objectionable, was 'now the most irreproachable of weeklies'. The title was revived in 1903 and again in 1906 under Horatio Bottomley" (Bostick, Darwin F. in Sullivan).
"The paper John Bull was bitter in its personalities, and in 1835 paid the penalty for having the courage of its opinions. One Patrick Chalmers, by no means a man of spotless reputation, had been convicted of forgery, and 'John Bull...had twitted Chalmers with his conviction. Upon which he brought an action against the proprietors of John Bull for libel.' The verdict was for the plaintiff Chalmers, with damages at thirty-five pounds. The style of journalism representative of John Bull of 1835 would be reprobated by any self-respecting satiric paper started in 'this so-called twentieth century'" (Burnand, p.99).
Hook "mercilessly and persistently ridiculed the Queen, beginning with a long article in No. 1. Perhaps in order to protect himself, Hook wrote at least two editorials stating that John Bull had received letters from a certain Theodore Hook who was insulted that the people believed him to be somehow connected with the paper. The first editorial appeared somewhat insulting to Hook, and the next one indicated that they had received a second letter from him asking for an apology. Not everyone fell for this trick, and The Real Old John Bull was started with an attack on Hook" (Herd, pp.199-200).
"The first number has only three advertisements. It was avowedly set on foot for the purpose of assailing Queen Caroline, and all prominent persons who may in any way espoused her cause in the celebrated trail of that princess. From the contents of the first number no one could doubt what tone and character the paper were to be. In the very first words of its original matter we could read as follows:-'We commence our paper without comment or prospectus. Our object is speaking plain truth, and we will do our duty. The Shameful licentiousness of a prostituted press, the infamous tendencies of the caricatures which issue from every sink of vice and infamy in and near the metropolis, the inflammatory speeches of knaves and fools, the absurd unmeaning addresses to the Queen, and the libelous and treasonable animus given to them, are banes to our Constitution, which call loudly for an antidote.' Referring to Queen Caroline, in a subsequent part of the same opening article John Bull says:-'On the subject of this sickening woman we shall enter into no arguments or discussions, because they go for nothing at this period of her adventures.' Its editorship was confided to Mr. Theodore Hook, who entered so heartedly into the work for which the paper was commenced, that in the first year the three registered printers and proprietors were severely sentenced by the Court of King's Bench to nine months imprisonment. In the following year the same three persons were brought up before the King's Bench to receive judgment for a series of libels, of which they had been convicted, on Queen herself.... Fines and imprisonments for libelous matter in the John Bull continued to characterize the publication of that journal for a considerable amount of time. These frequent prosecutions had the effect which usually results under the similar circumstances, of bringing the paper into notice and greatly extending its circulation. But though it was generally known at the commencement of the John Bull, as it was afterwards admitted by himself, that Theodore Hook was the editor, he tried by means of one of those ingenious devices of which he was so great a master, to leave an impression in the public mind that he had been erroneously believed to have anything whatever to do with the John Bull...made a little or no progress in the way of forming an advertising connexion. I find that neither in the sixth nor the tenth number contained a single advertisement; and intervening numbers had only two advertisements. But in point of circulation the paper attained within a few weeks if its commencement a measure of success which has probably never been surpassed in the history of a weekly newspaper...they only...printed 750 copies of the first number. There was some great mystery connected with the origin of the John Bull, which, so far as I know, has never yet been explained. The registered proprietor was one of the compositors in a Mr. William Shackell's printing establishment. The latter was the real printer and in effect the responsible proprietor of it; but neither he nor Theodore Hook, nor the nominal editor, the person named Cooper, nor any one ostensibly connected with the paper, had any money wherewith to give it a fair start. Somehow or the other, however. And from some guarantee or other, ample funds were provided with a view to insure its success... By the time the John Bull had reached its twelfth number, it had attained the extraordinary circulation-especially extraordinary as the price was sevenpence-12,000 copies weekly; while the demand for the back numbers was so great, parties being desirous of having complete sets, that they had to reprinted several times... There can be no question that the John Bull was conducted with great talent, wit, and humor, in the first two years of its existence, but it was often coarse, and every number abounded with personalities. This last quality was equally characteristic of its prose and its poetry. Each number contained a greater or less quantity of the latter. Hook himself was the chief writer who largely contributed poetical squibs. Among them were the Rev. Mr. Barham, alias Thomas Ingoldsby, and Thomas Haynes Bayley...James Smith, one of the authors of the 'Rejected Addresses,' was generally supposed to be one of the principal poetical contributors to the John Bull.... Yet the fact was that not only was he not the author of the poetical effusion in question, but it so happened that Mr. Smith never in his life wrote a single line for the John Bull. Samuel Rogers, author for the 'Pleasures of Memory,' was also credited with writhing poetry for the John Bull. In one sense this was true; but not in the sense in which the assumption was made. Mr. Rogers wrote some pieces of poetry for that journal, but they were purely of a poetical character. He never wrote a line for it which was either political or personal. Many of the best poetical pieces which appeared in the John Bull were anonymous,-anonymous even to the editor as well as the public. The John Bull in the first part of the second year of its existence did in calculable mischief in many families. It is an ascertained fact, that scores of different persons were suspected of being the authors of particular personal articles, who were as innocent of writing them as persons themselves whom they held up to ridicule. The Countess of Jersey, who was the last of the lady aristocracy to break off her intimacy with the Queen, adopted a bold course to put down, as far as she could, the system of traducing, and otherwise libeling, the Queen and her friends. She caused a circular to be issued announcing her determination not only to exclude from her own parties, but to use her influence to get excluded from all aristocratic families where she had influence, any one, whether gentleman or lady, whom she could ascertain to be encouraging the John Bull, either by taking it into their houses, or otherwise assisting in the circulation of what she called the 'pestilential paper,' As the Countess Jersey's parties in Berkeley Square were the most brilliant of parties half a century ago, and she was the chief Lady Patroness of Almanacks, this circular has no inconsiderable effect. On the death of Queen Caroline, in the summer of 1821, the circulation of the John Bull fell off very greatly. As it was for the express purpose of traducing, denouncing, and holding her Majesty up to ridicule in every possible way, that the paper was started, and as she and her friends were, for the intervening nineteen or twenty months, the food on which it lived, it was to be expected that her death would largely diminish the sale of the paper; but still no one could have anticipated that it would fall off in circulation with the rapidity it did. As in the second year of its existence there was a considerable increase in the advertisements, it was well known fact that between that source of profit and the revenue derived from its extensive circulation, the profits of the John Bull were not less than 4000£ per annum…Mr. Hook continued for many years after the death of Queen Caroline editor of the John Bull, at a comparatively small salary, but he never wrote after her demise with same spirit or the same ability. Eventually the paper became to a certain extent an organ of the High Church and Tory clergy. It weekly devoted much space to that kind of ecclesiastical matters which the conductors well knew would be most congenial to their taste. Eventually, that is, nearly a quarter of a century ago, it became partly, if not altogether, the property of the late Rev. Dr. Biber, rector of Roehampton, in Surrey, and he himself became the editor. In his time it was considerably enlarged, and the number of its advertisements was greatly increased; but the stamp returns, which were then published in the parliamentary papers, showed that the circulation did not increase. Since Dr. Biber's death, the John Bull has been conducted with greater spirit and tact , and has in consequence partly recovered its lost ground. It has been for the second time enlarged. It now contains twelve instead of eight papers as at first, while there is a great increase in the size of the page. On particular occasions it publishes supplements. For some years past the John Bull has surpasses all its weekly contemporaries if the extent, the accuracy, and the interest of its ecclesiastical information; while in relation to purely political matters of importance it has, within the last three or four years, frequently surprised the public by exclusive information. It is understood to be now a fairly paying property" (Grant, James; pp.54-63).
Sir Walter Scott was a sponsor to the paper. This paper appealed to middle to upper class, politically conservative readers.
"The John Bull weekly newspaper, has been printed and published at No. 40 Fleet Street, ever since its commencement in Dec. 1820. If not projected and edited at first by the celebrated Theodore Hook, it is generally known that he was intimately connected with it for many years, and that he wrote many of its highly poignant articles. Conservative and of high church principles, it has continued an unflinching course of advocating these two branches of the government and to censure and ridicule all classes of society, and all departments of politicians of opposite opinions. The eminently witty, and as eminently reckless, editor soon rendered it popular and profitable to the proprietors, and to himself, by the severity of its political articles, and by the poignant wit and satire of its personal and literary essays...Never, perhaps, was there a man of such precocious and versatile talents. 'As a wit, confessed without rival to shine,' his company was courted, and he was incessantly flattered by princes, nobles, and the most noted in the world of fashion and of fame...unrivaled in the world of genius...Yet this man, this accomplished wit and novelist, was imprisoned and degraded for disreputable neglect of his duties in a public government office, in which he was misplaced by political friends" (Rees, pp.107,108).
Horatio Bottomley revived the title in 1903 and 1906 respectively. The publications are distinct, however.
Graham mentions that "it is still in progress, but contains nothing of literary interests" (387).

Location:

complete runs: LO/N38 A, LO/N-1 A, ED/P99, LO/S-7 B; partial runs: LO/U-1 G (Goldsmith Collection) vols 1-17 (1820-1833), CA/U-1 A no 52-vol 10 no 514 (09 Dec 1821-18 Oct 1830, wanting 1820-02 Dec 1821, 25 Oct 1830-1892), QZ/P-1 vols 1-42 (1820-1862, wanting 1863-1892); N.America: CtY, MB, DLC, MH, NN; See Datamics Inc., New York; See Fulton and ULS 2&3; The full text is available on CENGAGE from Gale.