With bonds to Ainsworth's Magazine and Bentley's Miscellany, the New Monthly underscored the literary side of the press. Nonetheless, official restraint of its liberty, chiefly by taxation, did not escape observers.

1. C[ampbell], T[homas]. “Preface.” 1 (1821): iii–xii.

Editorial on the New Monthly 's first year acknowledged that “no important periodical publication can be supported by gratuitous contributions.” Readers were not interested in shortened articles, “the scrap-system of literature.” Publishing 1: 145 was a mistake because its exaggerations provoked American critiques of British press taxes. These columns, pirated by Albion's cheap newspapers, reinforced the discontent of the poor.

2. [Curran, W. H.]. “On the Complaints in America Against the British Press.” 1 (1821): 145–55.

Stereotyped Americans in response to an essay by A. H. Everett in the North American Review (#11, 1820) about the British press.

3. C., D. “The Proof-Sheet.” 1 (1821): 232–36.

Distinguished between the printer, “who consummates the author's conceptions,” and the critic, “the malicious and indelicate wretch, who delights to unstrip the dandy.” Aside that John Wilkes was important in the achievement of press liberty.

4. “Germany – Past and Present.” 1 (1821): 294–304.

Saluted the “bold political journalist,” the man suppressed in one German state who opened a journal in another.

5. [Matthews, Henry]. “Jonathan Kentucky's Journal.” 1 (1821): 430–35, 568–78, 693–700; 2 (1821): 104–12, 212–19, 522–32.

Contrasted British and American ideas of press freedom, notably ideas about political libel unknown in the United States.