newspaper of six pages, the ‘Weekly Journal, or Saturday's Post,’ which became the organ of the Jacobites and ‘High-flyers.’ In April 1717 Mist was arrested on suspicion of printing libels against the government, but was released after examination (Mist's Journal, 26 April 1717). Next week he was tried for printing ‘The Case of Mr. Francis Francia, the Reputed Jew,’ but was at once discharged (ib. 4 May 1717). The ‘Journal’ for 3 Aug. contained an editorial manifesto, protesting against charges of disloyalty, and promising that every effort should be used to obtain early news, especially direct news from abroad, ‘translated by the ablest hands.’ This address to the reader is, there can be little doubt, the first contribution to the paper by Daniel Defoe [q. v.], who, acting as an agent of the whig government, introduced himself ‘in the disguise of a translator of the foreign news’ into the office of the ‘Journal’ with the object of thus rendering its contents harmless without exciting the suspicion of the proprietor. Defoe's connection with the paper was soon well known; it was referred to in Read's whig ‘Weekly Journal’ for 14 Dec., and in the same paper for 28 Dec. it was alleged that messengers sent to search Mist's house had found the originals of seditious articles, which the publisher swore were in Defoe's handwriting. In Mist's ‘Journal’ for 21 Dec. a correspondent complained that the paper seemed to be turning whig, and a paragraph in reply to Read declared that Defoe was ‘no way at all concerned’ in it; yet in the next number appeared an able article against the imprisonment of honest but disabled debtors, bearing Defoe's own initials, ‘D.D.F.’
Between April and June 1718 Defoe placed on record, in a series of letters to Mr. Charles Delafaye (to be found in Mr. William Lee's ‘Life of Defoe’), an account of his connection with Mist's ‘Journal’ and other tory papers. Sometimes he sent to the secretary of state's office objectionable articles which he had stopped; sometimes he apologised for having overlooked certain paragraphs, and said he had warned Mist to be more wary. At last he thought he had Mist ‘absolutely resigned to proper measures, which would make his paper even serviceable to the government.’ On 4 June he spoke of an attempt made by Edmund Curll [q. v.] to trepan Mist into words against the government, with a view of informing against him. On 5 and 12 April Defoe had published in Mist's ‘Journal’ attacks on Curll's indecent publications, and Curll replied in ‘Curlicism display'd … in a Letter to Mr. Mist.’ Mist seems to have challenged Curll, and he concluded a letter on the subject in the ‘Journal’ for 14 June with the words, ‘O Cur— thou liest.’ According to Read's ‘Journal’ of the same date, Mist was the coward, as he did not keep the engagement. In his ‘Journal’ for 21 and 28 June and 26 July Mist replied to scandalous tales in Ridpath's ‘Flying Post,’ and each party threatened the other with an action for libel. On 20 and 27 Sept. Defoe printed letters in the ‘Journal’ warning Mist not to give the government an opportunity of prosecuting him. In October Read's ‘Journal’ spoke of Defoe and Mist as ‘Daniel Foe and his printer;’ and in the same month Mist's life was threatened by two men because of a letter he had published charging some ladies with irreverence in church (Journal, 4 and 11 Oct.) On 17 Oct. Mist was seized by a messenger, and on the following day was examined before Mr. Delafaye respecting a manuscript, ‘Mr. Kerr's Secret Memoirs’ [see Ker, John, of Kersland], which had been found upon him. He was told that he might be bailed when he pleased, but he did not furnish sureties till the following Saturday. Most of the time, however, he spent at his own house, on parole (State Papers, Dom., George I, Bundle 15, Nos. 14, 29). On that Saturday (25 Oct.) an article appeared in the ‘Journal,’ signed ‘Sir Andrew Politick,’ attacking the war with Spain; but Defoe appended a note qualifying the writer's statements. The number was seized, and an official memorandum says: ‘It is scarce credible what numbers of these papers are distributed both in town and country, where they do more mischief than any other libel, being wrote ad captum of the common people’ (ib. No. 29). On 1 Nov. Mist was examined before Lord Stanhope and Craggs, when he said that it was Defoe who had written the objectionable letter, together with the answer; and this statement was to some extent corroborated by Thomas Warner, printer of the ‘Journal’ (ib. Nos. 30, 33). In the ‘Whitehall Evening Post’ (1 Nov.) Defoe described the searching of Mist's premises, the finding of a seditious libel in the ceiling, and the committal of Mist, who, however, was soon discharged through Defoe's intervention. Read's ‘Journal’ alleged that Defoe had a security of 500l. from Mist not to discover him. This Mist denied on 8 Nov., boldly saying that Defoe never had any share in the ‘Journal,’ save that he sometimes translated foreign letters in the absence of the person usually employed. Defoe now ceased for a short time to have any connection with Mist, whose ‘Journal’ for 8 Nov. was presented by the grand jury for Middlesex on 28 Nov. as a false, seditious, scandalous, and
