THE END OF WAR CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1756, 1 November 1905, Page 71

THE END OF WAR CORRESPONDENCE.

It is long- since Lord Wolseley -voiced the opinion of military commanders by stigmatising the -war correspondent as “the curse of modern armies.’’’ Japan, practical and thorough in everything, translated that opinion into action, and saved the press of the world a mint of money. “Blackwood's Magazine 5 ' thinks that,. for its example. Japan deserves the gratitude of the world, and in expressing its hope that Britain will follow the same policy says: “With one voice the country is demanding a reformed army. That .army shall be of small profit to ns if our journals inform the enemy liow largo it is, and where it may be most readily surprised. To legislate in a hurry upon so grave a question will not be easy, and we trust that Members of Parliament will be round disinterested enough to press it consistently upon our Ministers. It will not be a popular enterprise, for the journals have a simple method of revenge upon those who would ourtail their privileges. But we are sanguine enough to believe that the example of Japan has not been set in vain, and we have every confidence that the wiser of our journals still act in good faith, when once their editor® understand the impending danger. Not long since Lord JBlLenboi'O’Ugh called attention in the House of Lords to this risk of disseminating news in time of war, but his warning fell upon deaf ears. Lord Selbome, admitting that the problem was of the greatest difficulty, declared that it could only be solved with the collaboration of the Press. We might just as well undertake a revision of our criminal law ion the advice of the professional house-breaker. If penalties are to be imposed upon the Press, the Government must discover those which it deems suitable, and not ask the possible culprit what punishment he would prefer. Moreover, the case against the journals is overwhelming. Ever since the Napoleonic wars our British armies have suffered from the recklessness of the Press. They have been forced to meet not only the open enemy in the field but the subtler foe of curiosity at home. The examples l lo f indiscretion, collected with praiseworthy candour by the 'Times,' itself an old offender, should make us blush for our newspapers. Nelson and Wellington were both victims, and had the Press had its way the battle of Trafalgar would never have been fought. In a letter written in September, 1805, ; Nelson urged that the publisher of tjio 'Gibraltar Gazette' should be forbidden to mention his force. 'I have much fear,' said he, 'that if the enemv know of our increased numbers, we shall never see them out of Cadiz.’ But the harm was done-—Jtlie r Gibraltar Gazette* bad babbled; and but for the peremptory orders of Napoleon, the French Admiral would not have risked the battle. Wellington complained yet more bitterly, and with better reason. While he was fighting in the Peninsula he sent a newspaper to Lord Liverpool, which gave an account of his works, 'the number of men and guns in each, and for what purpose contructed.' Lord Liverpool does not seem to have taken a sufficiently grave view of the outrage, and Wellington protested again with some scorn. 'lt may be very right,' said be, 'to give the British public this information; but if they choose to have it, they ought to know the price they pay for it, and the advantages it gives th® enemy in all their operations. That i® excellent .sense. If the people insists upon news to which it has no right, let it know what it pays in blood and money for the ill-omened privilege.