Both double comparatives and double superlatives were marginalised and even forced out of standard English by grammarians as tautological and pleonastic towards the end of the 17th century and throughout the 18th century, though this tendency started earlier.
In an excellent article entitled "More strenger and mightier": some remarks on double comparison in Middle English (abstracts available on TheFreeLibrary by Farlex), linguist Matylda Wlodarczyk explains:
The scarcity of the surviving OE (Old English) examples contrasts with the ample distribution of DC (Double Comparatives) in ME (Middle English) (e.g., Pound 1901: 53). It is claimed that Late ME was the time when the form peaked, which is corroborated by the surviving record analysed so far (cf. the findings in Gonzalez-Diaz 2006a).
Which means that somewhere between 1150 CE to around 1450 (cf. British Library), the use of Double Comparatives and Superlatives was at its climax. The article warns however that
one has to take into account that the discontinuous representation in the historical record established by the previous studies may not so much reflect language usage but rather the growing uniformisation and standardisation pressures on later records.
As far as EModE (Early Modern English) is concerned, particularly well known is the presence of DC in Shakespeare, (e.g., Blake 2001) and there is evidence that DC was a feature of high style (Gonzalez-Diaz 2004: 192). For instance, in Ben Jonson's 1640 English grammar, it is viewed as
imitating the manner of most ancientest and finest Grecians.
At the same time, however, other early modern grammarians (Greaves in 1594 and Butler in 1636) saw it as outdated or recommended its avoidance (Dons 2004: 56), indicating the decreasing acceptability of the form.
This is when the structure begins to attract the disfavour of grammarians who had the task of standardising and unifying the language:
DC was thus prevented from becoming part of standard English grammars by the standardisation-related preferences for uniformity of coding and economy. Those tendencies were effectively promoted by the English prescriptivist and purist tradition stigmatising pleonasm and tautology (cf. Kyto and Romaine 2000; Schluter 2005: 68; but also Gonzalez-Diaz 2004; Auer and Gonzalez-Diaz 2005).
Double comparatives and superlatives have survived though in certain varieties and registers of English:
Despite the standardization effects and the prescriptive and rationalising pressures in the 17th and 18th centuries and its absence from historical corpora after 1640 (Kyto and Romaine 1997), DC is evidenced, for instance, in the journals of Captain Cook, while its presence in the speech of the colonisers of the 19th century is also reflected in the English-lexicon creoles (Romaine 2005). The preservation of double comparison in those varieties of English, as well as in the English vernaculars all over the world, discloses the forced nature of its elimination from the English standards and undermines the redundancy or logic arguments used by those who aimed to stigmatise it.
For more about the use of this structure in different varieties of English, you can check this interesting article from the Yale University: Double comparatives. Thought.co has an interesting selection of examples too.