om neither information can
enlighten nor affluence elevate.' He further expresses his conviction
that 'if their patrons would read their writings, their salaries would
be quickly withdrawn, for a few pages would convince them that they can
neither attack nor defend, neither raise any man's reputation by their
panegyrics, nor destroy it by their defamation.' Sir Robert Walpole,
who, as has been already stated, expended enormous sums in bribes to
public writers, however expedient he may have thought it to retain their
services, does not appear to have attached much importance personally to
the writers either for or against him, at least if we may put faith in
his own words. On one occasion he said: 'I have never discovered any
reason to exalt the authors who write against the Administration to a
higher degree of reputation than their opponents;' and on another, 'Nor
do I often read the papers of either party, except when I am informed by
some, who have more inclination to such studies than myself, that they
have risen by some accident above their common level.'

Among the first rank of newspaper writers at this period must be placed
the undying name of Henry Fielding, whose connection with journalism
originated in his becoming, in 1739, editor and part owner of the
_Champion_, a tri-weekly periodical of the _Spectator_ stamp, with a
compendium of the chief news of the day in addition. The rebellion of
1745, like every other topic of absorbing interest, became the parent of
a great many news sheets, the chief of which was probably the _National
Journal, or County Gazette_, inasmuch as it called forth a Government
prosecution, and procured six months' imprisonment for its printer. In
opposition to the Jacobite journals, several newspapers were started in
the interest of the Government. Fielding brought out the _True Patriot_,
in 1745, and proved no mean antagonist for the sympathizers with the
banished Stuarts. In the prospectus issued with his first number, he has
some rather unpleasant things to say of his literary brethren:

'The first little imperfection in these writings is that there is scarce
a syllable of truth in any of them. If this be admitted to be a fault,
it requires no other evidence than themselves and the perpetual
contradictions which occur, not only on comparing one with the other,
but the same author with himself on different days. Secondly, there is
no sense in them. To prove this likewise, I appeal to