Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/262



says Charles Pebody. “ The Times was king, The Times and its

special correspondent; and the public believed far more in the men of Printing House Square - in their sagacity, in their mili tary capacity, and even in their patriotism — than it believed in the men of Whitehall.” 18

The same hostility towards the press was subsequently main tained by Lord Wolseley who complained, “ Without saying so directly, you can lead your army to believe anything; and as a rule , in all civilized nations, what is believed by the army, will

very soon be credited by the enemy, having reached him by means of spies, or through the medium of those newly -invented curses to armies -- I mean newspaper correspondents.” In no

uncertain termshe continues, " Travelling gentlemen, newspaper correspondents, and all that race of drones, are an encumbrance to an army; they eat the rations of fighting men, and do no work at all. Their numbers should be restricted as much as possible.”

And concerning retreats, he bewails, “ An English general of the present day is in the most unfortunate position in this respect, being surrounded by newspaper correspondents, who, pandering to the public craze for 'news', render concealmentmost difficult.

However,. . . he can, by spreading false news among the gentlemen of the press, use them as a medium by which to deceive an enemy.” 19 The antipathy of General Sherman to the war correspondents

of the American Civil War was no less pronounced. In 1861 he “ looked on them as a nuisance and a danger at headquarters and in the field, and acted towards them accordingly .” Later , “ his hostility to the press had become more and more pronounced.

. . . In one letter to a publisher he had said that he thought praise from a newspaper was contamination, and he would will

ingly agree to give half his pay to have his namekept out of the public prints.” 20 His letters to his brother are filled with denun 18 English Journalism, and the Men Who Have Made II, pp. 182-183. 19General Viscount Wolseley, The Soldier's Pocket-Book for Field Service, Third Edition, pp. 93, 97, 249. It is possible that the return comments on

Lord Wolseley by the war correspondents themselves may have led to the elimination of these uncomplimentary remarks from later editions, although the paragraph on “ retreat” appears in the fifth edition. See, e. 8., Archibald Forbes, Memories and Studies of War and Peace, pp. 353 - 354.

30 Memoirs of Henry Villard, I, 209; II, 237–238.