Who Contributed to Late-Eighteenth-Century English Newspapers? Authorship, Accessibility and Public Debate (1790–92)

Abstract

A dominant narrative shaping how we view the eighteenth-century English press is that newspapers were important forums for debate and opinion, and that they contributed significantly to the gradual broadening of political participation and inclusion. Yet we still know rather little about the contributors to newspapers in this period, and thus about the social accessibility of this public forum. Based on a systematic reading of six daily newspapers from the politically turbulent years 1790–92, this article explores the following questions: Who contributed to late eighteenth-century English newspapers in this important period? How open was the English press to writers from different social backgrounds? Contributor biography: Johanne Kristiansen holds a PhD from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where she currently works as an Associate Professor of English Literature. Her PhD thesis explored the relationship between news infrastructure and newspaper management in England in the late eighteenth century, with a particular focus on the role of news culture and its impact on the British response to the French Revolution. Her current research interests include pseudonymous authorship and the financing of political journalism in the long eighteenth century. Introduction Authorship has long been a neglected area of eighteenth-century newspaper studies. In an attempt to settle the vexed question of newspaper accessibility for different social groups, scholars of the late eighteenth-century English newspaper have typically focussed their attention on establishing the identity of newspaper readers. It is, however, equally interesting to ask who the authors of newspaper texts were. According to Hannah Barker and Simon Burrows, political commentary in England was open to ‘ordinary citizens’ who, supposing they could read and write, could reach those in power through letters to newspaper editors (2002, 15). This was certainly a familiar trope in the period, as demonstrated by the rhetoric of newspaper letter writers, but was it actually possible? How ‘ordinary’ were these authors in reality?