THE LONDON NEWSPAPERS. 201 



chambermaids" and "light porters" every day to be found in the 

 Times newspaper, we lately observed the following : " Wanted 

 immediately, as footman, a respectable and well-educated man ; he 

 must understand the dead languages and speak most of the living 

 ones fluently. He will be expected to wait at table with decorum, 

 to clean knives and forks, and attend to a horse and gig. He must 

 be of a brave and serious deportment, help the girls to make the 

 beds, and play with the children !" 



PROPER MODE OF LITERARY WARFARE. As soon as a man 

 publishes his sentiments and opinions on any subject, they become 

 fair marks of attack. Ridicule is a perfectly legitimate weapon, 

 but must be confined to the publication itself, its language, or the 

 views it contains. No personal allusion is, or can be, admissible. 

 If a man puts forth what are conceived to be false or unsound 

 doctrines, either in politics, law, or religion, let their fallacy be ex- 

 posed. Knock the author on the head with an argument run him 

 through with a syllogism show the absurdity of his opinions attack 

 them in prose or poetry, rhyme or blank verse. None of these can 

 an independent press refuse. They are all legitimate modes of 

 " wordy warfare." But personal abuse, and personal allusions, are 

 wholly indefensible. They do no good ; but, in nine cases out of 

 ten, a great deal of harm to the very side they are intended to 

 support. They promote not the cause of truth ; they, in fact, destroy 

 the beneficial effects that might otherwise result from free and inde- 

 pendent discussion. 



When newspapers fall out, it is remarkable how closely they 

 imitate the foibles of common-place humanity. They no longer 

 make a mystery of their calling ; they fling off the disguise of their 

 avocation, and become the merecreatures of passion and impulse ; 

 like players in a country barn, who quarrel, cast away their mock 

 habiliments, and fight out their brawl in the vulgar way. When one 

 newspaper has had a difference with another, the animal sensitiveness 

 of the porcupine is awoken, and the thousand quills of ridicule and 

 opprobrium are put into active operation. The public, however, 

 care very little about personal animosities or professional etiquette : 

 the great mass of mankind remains perfectly unmoved by the shock 

 that is rending the printing-office from end to end ; and, while editors 

 are storming Vwer the types, readers are placidly smiling at their 

 folly. A quarrel is indicated thus : one Journal says of another 

 "that vile organ of slander" "that contemptible print" "the 

 wretched Billingsgate, of the Hubbabub Journal" our degraded 

 contemporary," &c. ; which complimentary epithets are returned 

 with interest by its opponent. At last, the difference becomes 

 reconciled ; and the newspaper that but a few days before concen- 

 trated in its columns the worst elements of mischief and disgrace, be- 

 comes suddenly transformed into " our respectable contemporary, the 

 Hubbabub Journal" " that well-informed print" " decidedly one 

 of the first of its class," &c. ; in all which commendations the public 

 takes as much interest as it did in the previous censorial criticisms. 

 These are things of course they have grown up with the vices of 

 the press, and can only be expurgated by an editorial reformation, 

 M.M. No. 8. 3 2 C 



