In eighteenth-century England the morals and behavior of the aristocracy faced increasing scrutiny thanks to the development of daily newspapers. Accounts of duels fought between politicians and other “great” men, the suicides of those who had lost their honor or their fortunes at the gambling table, and the sexual scandals of the bon ton were increasingly common in the later eighteenth-century press. Together, these reports constituted a concerted attack on aristocratic practices, providing a critique of the political authority of England's governing elite, while associating certain vices with the dissipated morals of the beau monde.

This book bears the fruit of many years of research in this field by Donna T. Andrew. Her pioneering journal articles on the decline of dueling and the association of adultery with the “privilege” of the elite have dealt with some of the themes of this book, but here she presents a longer view, ranging from the late seventeenth century to the mid-Victorian period, and explores the interconnections between representations of vices associated with the elite. The attack on the morals of the aristocracy began with criticism of the sin of pride, which was bound up with the honor code. While pride of birth, lineage, and position were key qualities of the aristocracy's sense of honor, pride was also seen as a source of sin, pollution, and lawlessness. Fears that the elite were able to sin with impunity also led to concerns about emulation by their social inferiors.

The aristocratic code of honor was gendered, and for men pride dictated that they could not refuse a challenge. Dueling represented for its growing band of critics the honor code at its worst, a barbaric ritual that had little place in polite society. Thanks to the ubiquity of newspapers, duels became public events during the later eighteenth century and a focus for criticism, especially by Evangelicals who campaigned in Parliament for their suppression. The risk of death was seen as bringing misery for surviving family members and went against Christian principles and the natural law of self-preservation. Similar arguments were used to criticize suicide, which was also seen as evidence of the sin of pride and irreligion. The idea that adultery was a sin especially associated with the “great” was evident from the late-seventeenth-century adoption of the soft language of “gallantry” to describe upper-class love affairs. During the second half of the eighteenth century this association was cemented by increasing newspaper coverage of divorce or criminal conversation trials, a civil action whereby a wronged husband sued his wife's lover for damages. Calls to tighten the laws against marital infidelity were made, both through attempted legislation and through the use of punitive damages in criminal conversation trials, but the idea of adultery as an act practiced by the elite was seen as a barrier to reform. The gaming tables as well as the bedrooms of the elite also came under increasing scrutiny by the press. Gambling was criticized not only as a threat to a person's fortune but also as an antisocial vice that killed polite conversation. Gambling women were especially targeted in the press. To its critics, gaming disfigured women's countenances, ruined their chances of marrying men of “common sense,” and led to vices such as suicide or sexual immorality.

By the nineteenth century this prolonged criticism of aristocratic vice was beginning to fade. During the Napoleonic Wars the press became increasingly concerned with the vices of the poor. Although the critique of elite morals survived into the mid-nineteenth century, the fervor of this attack began to lessen. Dueling became much less common, dying out completely in England by the mid-Victorian period. The proportion of elite plaintiffs in criminal conversation or divorce cases fell, meaning that the reporting of matrimonial cases became less focused on the manners of the aristocracy. The reporting of suicide became increasingly sentimentalized, while gambling became less public and hidden away behind the walls of private houses or gentlemen's clubs.

This is a richly researched book, full of insight. It demonstrates the enormous potential for social historians of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century newspapers if used in a rigorous manner. The newspaper material is supported by other relevant sources, such as religious pamphlets and imaginative literature. However, the chapter on adultery would have benefited from engaging with the large body of satirical prints produced on marriage and infidelity in the late Georgian era, many of which dealt with similar issues of aristocratic vice to those examined in the press. Unfortunately the book seems to have been published too late to address the recent reinterpretation of eighteenth-century sexual mores by Faramerz Dabhoiwala in The Origins of Sex (New York, 2012). It would have been interesting to read Andrew's thoughts about how the growing critique of aristocratic vice clashed with louder arguments for sexual freedom as the eighteenth century progressed. But on the whole this is a fine book that provides a fascinating perspective on eighteenth-century conflicts of morality.