Douglas Jerrold was an intimate friend of the novelist, who occasionally dined with the _Punch_ staff; that Paxton, one of _Punch's_ heroes, exerted all his great influence on behalf of the new daily; and finally, that Bradbury and Evans were, at the time, the publishers of Dickens, of _Punch_, and of the _Daily News_. The journalism of the 'forties and 'fifties presents curious analogies with and divergences from the journalism of to-day. _Punch_ is never weary of girding at the cult of monstrosity and sensationalism, the disproportionate amount of space devoted to crime and criminals and _causes célèbres_, the habit of burning the idols of yesterday, the nauseating compliments paid to statesmen after death by those who had maligned them in their lifetime. Many of the least reputable exploits of Georgian journalism were anticipated in early Victorian days. Criticism was franker, more outspoken, and less restrained by the law of libel, and _Punch_ always stood out within reasonable limits for the liberty of the Press. When an Edinburgh jury gave a verdict against the _Scotsman_ in the famous case brought by Duncan MacLaren in 1852, _Punch_ compared them to Bomba, and congratulated the Scottish gentlemen who defrayed the _Scotsman's_ costs and damages. He regarded it as a righteous protest against a verdict which threatened "to make it impossible to express contempt at political apostasy, disgust at the abandonment of principles, or indignation at any coalition, however disreputable, without the danger of being brought before a jury." The _Scotsman_ was then edited by Alexander Russel, the most powerful, original, and enlightened of Scots journalists. Russel, for the last twenty years of his life, dominated the _Scotsman_ as Delane dominated _The Times_. But it was, in the main, a righteous and benevolent dictatorship. "What made every one turn with alert curiosity to _The Times_ in Delane's day was that nobody knew beforehand which side he would take on any new question." [24] And much the same might be said of Russel. No such curiosity is possible to-day. There has been a great levelling up of journalism from the bottom, and a great levelling down from the top. In the old days the gap between men like Delane and Russel and the penny-a-liners was greater than any gap that now exists in the profession. Not the least of their distinctions was the fact that they both died without even a knighthood to their names. Fifty years later neither of them could have held his post for a fortnight. It is to the credit of _Punch_ that he recognized the value of their independence and emulated it in his own sphere. He played his part manfully in helping to kill the old flunkey-worship of rank, but could not prevent the reincarnation of "Jenkins" in the modern sycophantic worshipper of success--no matter how achieved. The excellence of provincial journalism--not yet exposed to the competition