there can be no reasonable doubt that the earliest germs of news sheets
are to be found among that wonderful people, who have left such enduring
monuments of themselves wherever they carried their victorious eagles.
The Roman news sheets were called _Acta Diurna_, and were issued by the
Government, and affixed to the walls in the most public places in the
city. They were also carefully stored in a building set apart for the
purpose, where any person could have access to them, and make copies of
them for the benefit of their friends in distant parts of the empire. It
is probable also that the Roman historians availed themselves of them in
their compilations. They were not only reports of the ordinary
occurrences in the city, but journals of the proceedings in the courts
and town councils as well, and they contain records of trials,
elections, punishments, buildings, deaths, sacrifices, state
ceremonials, prodigies, etc., etc. They are alluded to in the
correspondence between Cicero and Coelius, when the great orator was
governor of Cilicia. Coelius had promised to send him an account of
the news of Rome, and encloses in his first letter a journal of the
events which had transpired in the city during his absence. Cicero, in
reply, complains that his friend had misinterpreted his wishes, and says
that he had not desired him to send an account of the matches of
gladiators, the adjournments of the courts, and occurrences of that
kind, which nobody dared to talk to him about even when he was residing
in Rome: what he wanted was a description of the course of politics and
but the newspaper of Chrestus. He also refers to these sheets, that is
to say, to accounts of public affairs _in actis_ and _ex actis_, in two
letters to Cassius and one to Brutus, written previously to the
triumvirate. Suetonius also makes mention of them, and says that Julius
Cæsar, in his consulship, ordered the diurnal acts of the senate and the
people to be published. Tacitus relates a speech of a courtier to Nero
to induce him to execute Thrasea, and among other things he says:
'Diurna populi Romani per provinciam per exercitus accuratius leguntur
ut noscatur quid Thrasea non fecerit.' Seneca and the younger Pliny also
allude to them. Dr. Johnson, in the preface to the tenth volume of the
_Gentleman's Magazine_, published in 1740, enters into a disquisition
upon these _acta diurna_, and gives an account of the discovery of some
of them with the date of 585 A. U. C., and adds some specimens
from them. He quotes them from the 'Annals of Rome,' by Stephen Pighius,
who declares that he obtained them from James Susius, by whom they were
found among the MSS. belonging to Ludovicus Vives. Their authenticity
has, as might be expected, been hotly disputed by many learned scholars
at various times, but sufficient grounds have not been adduced for their
rejection. The most suspicious circumstance connected with them is their
resemblance, _mutatis mutandis_, to a newspaper of the present day. Thus
among other things we are told that the consul went in grand procession
to sacrifice at the temple of Apollo, just as now a-days we might read
that Queen Victoria went in state to St. Paul's, or attended divine
service at the chapel royal, St. James's. Then we are favored with an
account of the setting forth of Lucius Paulus Æmilius, the consul, for
the war in Macedonia, and a description of the departure of the embassy
of Popilius Lena, Caius Decimus, and Caius Hostilius to Syria and Egypt,
with a great attendance of relations and clients, and of their offering
up a sacrifice and libations at the temple of Castor and Pollux before
commencing their journey. Then we hear how an oak was struck by
lightning on the summit of Mount Palatine, which was called _Summa
Velia_, and have the particulars given us of a fire which took place on
Mount Coelius, together with an account of the crucifixion of a
certain noted pirate. Dramatic intelligence is represented by a
description of the plays acted in honor of the goddess Cybele; and under
the head of 'fashionable intelligence,' the Jenkins of the day
chronicles the funeral of Marcia, a noble Roman matron, and remarks that
the attendance of images was greater than that of mourners. He also adds
an account of the entertainment given to the people by her sons upon the
occasion. By way of police news, we find a record of a disturbance in a
tavern, in which the tavern keeper was severely wounded; and how
Tertinius, the ædile, fined some butchers for selling meat which had not
been inspected by the overseers of the market. A counterpart of this
transaction may be met with every day in the city of London, but the
result of the affair is much the more satisfactory in Rome, for whereas
we do not know for certain what becomes of the money obtained from the
penalty in London, we learn that the ædile directed it to be devoted to
the building of an additional chapel to the temple of the goddess
Tellus. Dr. Johnson also quotes a second series of _Acta Diurna_, with
the date of 691 A. U. C., from the 'Camdenian Lectures' of
Dodwell in 1688 to 1691. Dodwell says that he obtained them from his
friend Hadrian Beoerland, who got them from Isaac Vossius, by whom they
were copied from certain MSS. in the possession of Petavius. Among other
things contained in this second set, we find noted certain trials, with
the number of the votes for and against the defendant, a bargain for the
repairs of a certain temple, an announcement by one of the prætors that
he shall intermit his sittings for five days, in consequence of the
marriage of his daughter, and an account of the pleading of Cicero in
favor of Cornelius Sulla, and of his gaining his cause by a majority of
five judges.
Such are the earliest traces of newspapers to be found, and long
centuries elapse before we again catch a glimpse of anything of the
kind. Although it is the great Anglo-Saxon race alone which can boast of
having developed the usefulness and liberty of the press to its fullest
capabilities, both in England and America, yet it is not to us that the
credit belongs of having been the first to reintroduce newspapers in
Europe. Whether or no the Romans introduced their _Acta Diurna_ into
Britain, and whether or no any imitations of them sprang up then or in
after times, it is impossible to say. Some writers have asserted that
news sheets were in circulation in England at all events so early as the
middle of the fifteenth century, but as their assertions rest upon no
very trustworthy basis, they must be at once thrown aside. It is to
Italy that we must again turn for the reappearance of the newspaper. It
was in 1536, or thereabouts, that the Venetian magistracy caused
accounts of the progress of the war which they were waging against
Suleiman II, in Dalmatia, to be written and read aloud to the people in
different parts of the city. The news sheet appeared once a month, and
was called _Gazetta_, deriving its name, probably, from a coin so
called, of the value of something less than a cent, either because that
was the price of the sheet, or the sum paid for reading it, or for
having it read. There are thirty volumes of this MS. newspaper preserved
in the Maggliabecchi Library at Florence, and there are also some in the
British Museum, the earliest date of which is 1570. Printed news
letters, with date and number, but not so deserving of the title of
newspaper, began to appear about the same time in Germany. They were
called _Relations_, and were published at Augsburg and Vienna in 1524,
at Ratisbon in 1528, Dollingen in 1569, and Nuremberg in 1571. The first
regular German newspaper appeared at Frankfort, and was entitled
_Frankfurter Oberpostamtszeitung_, in 1615. The first French was brought
out by Renaudot, a physician, in 1632. The first Russian paper came out
under the auspices of Peter the Great, in 1703, and was styled the _St.
Petersburg Gazette_. Spain did not enter the lists until a year later,
and the _Gazeta de Madrid_ was born in 1704. It could not have been
worth much as a newspaper, inasmuch as the defeat off Cape St. Vincent
did not appear in its columns until four weeks after it had taken place.
There must have been some sort of news sheets in existence in England
about the same time as the Venetian _Gazetta_, for in the thirty-sixth
year of King Henry VIII, the following proclamation appeared:
'The King's most excellent Majestie, understanding that certain
light persones, not regarding what they reported, wrote, or sett
forth, had caused to be ymprinted and divulged certaine newes of
the prosperous successes of the King's Majestie's army in Scotland,
wherein, although the effect of the victory was indeed true, yet
the circumstances in divers points were, in some parte
over-slenderly, in some parte untruly and amisse reported; his
Highness, therefore, not content to have anie such matters of so
greate importance sett forthe to the slaunder of his captaines and
ministers, nor to be otherwise reported than the truthe was,
straightlie chargeth and commandeth all manner of persones into
whose hands anie of the said printed bookes should come,
ymmediately after they should hear of this proclamation, to bring
the said bookes to the Lord Maior of London, or to the recorder or
some of the aldermen of the same, to the intent they might suppress
and burn them, upon pain that every person keeping anie of the said
bookes twenty-four hours after the making of this proclamation,
should suffer ymprisonment of his bodye, and be further punished at
the King's Majestie's will and pleasure.'
None of these obnoxious 'printed bookes' have survived to the present
time, and it has been contended that they were probably nothing more
than ballads and copies of doggerel verses. But this is an hypercritical
objection, or rather groundless guess, for it is evident that the
proclamation points at something far more important. We may safely
conclude that they were newspapers, and that journalism had already
attained sufficient dimensions to alarm the powers that were, and draw
down their hostility. And a few years later, Pope Gregory XIII
fulminated a bull, called _Minantes_, against the news sheets, as
spreading scandal and defamation, etc.
It was long fondly believed that the British Museum counted among its
treasures a full-blown printed English newspaper, dating so far back as
1588. It was entitled the _English Mercurie_, and purported to be
'published by authoritie for the suppression of false reports, ymprinted
at London by Christopher Barker, her Highness's Printer.' Writer after
writer exulted in the fact, and was loud in the praises of the sagacity
and wisdom of Burleigh, under whose direction it was supposed to have
been issued. But unfortunately for antiquaries and literati, the matter
was carefully investigated by Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, and he
pronounced on unquestionable evidence the copies of the _English
Mercurie_ to be nothing but a barefaced forgery, of which he went even
so far as to accuse, on good grounds, the second Lord Hardwicke of being
the perpetrator. But though we must discard this fictitious account of
the Spanish armada, etc., other news sheets did actually exist in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, a list of which has been compiled by Dr.
Rimbault. The titles of some of them are: _New Newes, containing a short
rehearsal of Stukely and Morice's Rebellion_, 1579; _Newes from
Scotland, declaring the damnable Life of Doctor Fian, a notable
Sorcerer, who was burned in Edenborough in January last_, 1591; _Newes
from Spain and Holland_, 1593; _Newes from Flanders_, 1599; _Newes out
of Cheshire of the new-found Well_, 1600; _Newes from Gravesend_, 1604.
As time went on, these 'pamphlets of newes' increased in number. They
treated of all kinds of intelligence; some derived their materials from
foreign countries, and some from different parts of the kingdom at home;
some were true, and some were false. Thus we find, among others,
_Lamentable Newes out of Monmouthshire, in Wales, containinge the
wonderfull and fearfull Accounts of the great overflowing of the Waters
in the said Countye_, 1607; _Newes from Spain_, 1611; _Newes out of
Germanie_, 1612; _Wofull Newes from the west partes of England, of the
burning of Tiverton_, 1612; _Good Newes from Florence_, 1614; _Strange
Newes from Lancaster, containinge an Account of a prodigious Monster,
born in the Township of Addlington, in Lancashire, with two bodyes
joined to one back_, 1613; _Newes from Italy_, 1618; _Newes out of
Holland_, 1619; _Vox Populi, or Newes from Spain_, 1620. About this time
the news sheets began to assume particular and distinctive titles, under
which they appeared at uncertain intervals. We meet with _The Courant,
or Weekly Newes from Foreign Parts_, 1621; _The certain Newes of this
present Week_, 1622; _The Weekly Newes from Italy, Germany, etc._, 1622,
a title which was shortly after exchanged for that of _Newes from most
Parts of Christendom, London, printed for Nathaniel Butler and William
Sheppard_. These names ought to be preserved, as being those of the
great pioneers of regular journalism. It appears, however, that they did
not always keep the same title for their newspaper, for sometimes it was
called _The Last Newes_; at others, _The Weekly Newes continued_; _More
Newes_; _Our Last Newes_, and other various renderings of the same
theme. This great progenitor of a mighty race also adopted a system of
numbering, and, though exposed to many dangers and vicissitudes, did not
finally disappear until 1640. Butler and his contemporaries had to
struggle with many obstacles, and to contend against many and powerful
foes. In 1637, Archbishop Laud procured the passing of an ordinance
limiting the number of master printers to twenty, and punishing with
whipping and the pillory all such as should print without a license.
Butler's name does not occur in this list; so we may conclude that he
was particularly obnoxious to the haughty prelate and his party. But
this persevering journalist, whose name had for a long time appeared
alone as the printer of his newspaper, contrived to surmount this
difficulty, for in a manifesto, dated January 11th, 1640, he says:
'Courteous reader! we had thought to have given over printing our
foreign avisoes, for that the licenser (out of a partial affection)
would not oftentimes let pass apparent truth, and in other things
(oftentimes) so crosse and alter, which made us weary of printing;
but he being vanished (and that office fallen upon another more
understanding in these forraine affaires, and as you will find more
candid) we are againe (by the favour of his Majestie and the state)
resolved to go on printing, if we shall find the world to give a
better acceptation of them (than of late) by their weekly buying of
them. It is well known these novels are well esteemed in all parts
of the world (but heere) by the more judicious, which we can impute
to no other but the discontinuance of them, and the uncertaine
daies of publishing them, which, if the post fail us not, we shall
keep a constant day everie weeke therein, whereby everie man may
constantly expect them, and so we take leave.'
This number of his journal is entitled _The continuation of the Forraine
Occurrents, for five Weeks past, containinge many remarkable Passages of
Germanie, etc.; examined and licensed by a better and more impartiall
hand than heretofore_. Another noticeable thing in this manifesto is the
first occurrence of the autocratic editorial 'we.'
Butler had also to contend with the opposition of the news writers or
news correspondents, who doubtless found his undertaking interfere with
their trade. These gentry covenanted for the sum of £3 or £4 a year to
write a news letter every post day to their subscribers in the country.
That this curious trade was thoroughly systematized is evident from the
following passage in Ben Jonson's 'Staple of News,' published in 1635:
'This is the outer room where my clerks sit
And keep their sides, the register i' the midst;
The examiner he sits private there within--
And here I have my several rolls and files
Of news by the alphabet, and all put up
Under their heads.'
The news writers flourished greatly at this period, but as newspapers
began to get a footing, their credit gradually declined--and with
reason, if we may put confidence in the following extract from the
_Evening Post_, of September 6th, 1709:
'There must be £3 or £4 paid per annum by those gentlemen who are
out of town for written news, which is so far generally from having
any probability of matter of fact, that it is frequently stuffed up
with a 'we hear,' or 'an eminent Jew merchant has received a
letter,' being nothing more than downright fiction.'
To Butler belongs the credit of having been the first to introduce
street newsboys, with this difference, that his employés were of the
other sex, and were styled 'Mercurie women.'
Butler was a stanch royalist, and consequently suffered the vengeance of
the Parliamentary party. He fell into great poverty, and, according to
Anthony à Wood, died on board Prince Rupert's fleet in Kinsale harbor,
in 1649, just as a brighter day was beginning to dawn upon journalism.
The struggle between the Parliament and the king set the press free from
the multiplied restrictions by which it had been 'cabined, cribbed,
confined' and almost stifled in its cradle. The country became flooded
with publications of all kinds, of which, while many were trashy,
ridiculous, and extravagant, there still remained a considerable portion
which materially helped forward that mighty uprising of the people to
which England owes her freedom, her glory, and her might.
And here, having introduced to the reader the first real newspaper, and
the great ancestor of all after editors, and having attended the press
through its obscure infancy and perilous childhood, we must pause,
reserving for consideration in a future article the fair promise of its
youth and the development of its still more glorious manhood.
THE CONSCRIPTION ACT OF MARCH 3D.
Few subjects are more difficult of legislation than that of the military
service of a nation. The most profound wisdom, the most enlightened
statesmanship, the most intimate knowledge of society, are requisite in
the legislator. It is easy, indeed, to regulate the military service in
times of peace, when the army is small and volunteers are abundant. But
when the ordinary methods fail to fill up the ranks, decimated by actual
war, when the honor and perpetuity of a nation depend upon a
conscription of its citizens, then comes the tug of war, and many
legislatures have failed in their deliberations on this subject. In the
first place, a Conscription Act is opposed to popular prejudice.
Compulsory service of any kind, except for punishment, is contrary to
our ideas of personal freedom. We believe in the sovereign privilege of
doing what we please, and declining to do what we do not please, to its
fullest possible extent. We love to tell our neighbors that we have no
standing army to defend our national honor, but that it reposes safely
on the _voluntary_ patriotism of the people. We may admit the
_necessity_ for a Conscription Act--may confess its justice and
impartiality; but few men who are liable to fall into its pitiless
clutches, can speak of such an act without a shrug of uneasiness or a
wicked expression of anger. Again, it must be universal in its
application. It must meet all classes and conditions of society; must be
adapted to all shades of religious and political belief; must be
inflexible as Justice on his throne, yet tender and sympathetic as a
mother to her child. It must take into consideration different branches
of industry, and the fields of one section must not be depleted of
husbandmen that those of another may be filled with warriors.
The act of March 3d meets these difficulties more successfully, perhaps,
than any previous act, whether of a State or National Legislature. It is
based upon the broad and well-admitted maxim, that every citizen owes
his personal service to the Government which protects him. But while the
Government impartially demands this service, the law provides for the
exemption of those who would suffer by the unqualified enforcement of
this demand.
Many persons outside of the specified limits of age, are physically able
to do military service. But, _as a class_, it would have been cruel and
impolitic to have forced men into a service which would have wrecked
health and happiness for life, or, by a short and swift passage through
the military hospitals, have shuffled them into premature graves. Few
men under twenty-five have the power of endurance necessary for a long
and wearisome campaign. The muscles are not sufficiently knit and
hardened for the service, nor the constitution sufficiently fortified to
withstand the exposure. Men over forty-five have lost the vigor and
elasticity necessary to long and arduous exertion, and are constantly
liable to become a burden instead of a benefit to the service.
No previous act has so equally disposed the military duty among the
various classes affected by it. It is a well-known fact that the burdens
of military service are wont to bear most heavily on the _laboring_
classes. Probably no legislation can entirely remove this inequality.
But the act of March 3d makes special provision for the indigent and
helpless, and to a great extent relieves the suffering and inconvenience
dependent on an enforced military conscription. Poverty is not left
without relief, infancy without protection, old age without comfort. The
dependent widow, the infirm parent, the homeless orphan, are adopted by
the Government, and their support and protection provided for. And in
order that the character and dignity of the army may comport with the
greatness and purity of the cause for which it is fighting--that it may
be both the power and the pride of the nation, it is expressly provided,
that 'no person who has been guilty of any felony shall be enrolled or
permitted to serve in said forces.' For the benefit of those whose
peculiar business or family relations require their services at home,
Congress wisely inserted 'the $300 clause.' In this they but followed
the established custom in most nations since the days of feudalism. No
part of the act has been more violently assailed than this, none more
unjustly. It is asserted that this clause discriminates against the
poor, in favor of the rich; that it recognizes unjust distinctions
between the classes of society, and assigns military duty unequally
among the citizens. No assertion could more glaringly display the
author's ignorance and lack of judgment.
The law, as originally drawn, required the service of the man drafted or
an acceptable substitute within ten days. Had 'the $300 clause' not been
inserted, the competition for substitutes would have been so great that
their price would have risen far beyond the ability of men in moderate
circumstances to pay, and many would have been forced into service who
thus have an opportunity for exempting themselves. It has kept the price
of substitutes at a low figure, and thus has proven itself emphatically
the poor man's provision.
Nor is the law harsh toward those who may be drafted. Abundant time is
given for the settlement of any pressing business, the proper
disposition of family affairs, or the procuring of a substitute. It is
mild toward the infirm and afflicted, making ample provision for the
exemption of those who, from any cause, are unfit for service.
It assures to drafted men the same pay, bounty, clothing, and equipments
as volunteers receive, and in all respects puts them on the same
footing. It thus removes the unjust distinction wont to be made between
the drafted man and volunteer, looking upon each as a true soldier of
his country, equally interested in its honor and perpetuity. And in
order that justice may be secured to the citizen as well as to the
Government, the entire business of the enrolment and draft is under the
supervision of a board of three men, generally residents of the
district.
The prevailing spirit of the act, cropping out in almost every section,
is the tenderness with which it handles the subject. It scrupulously
seeks to avoid all violence, injustice, and suffering, and while it
firmly asks the service of the people, distributes that service equally
among all. And herein is its superiority over all previous militia acts.
State and national officers, members of Congress, custom-house
officials, postmasters, clerks, and the favored and fortunate generally,
were heretofore exempt, instead of those who, by misfortune or
otherwise, were in circumstances of dependence and want.
But the act of March 3d, thus general in its application, thus humane in
its provisions, is not without omissions and imperfections. But these
arise rather from the language of its provisions, than from its general
design. Let us briefly examine these provisions as they are given in the
second section of the act.
Clause second exempts 'the only son liable to military duty of a widow
dependent upon his labor for support.'
The Judge Advocate General has decided, that 'a woman divorced from her
husband who is still living, is not in the sense of the law a widow--a
widow being defined to be a woman who has lost her husband by death.'
Her only son, therefore, upon whom she may be dependent for her support,
cannot be exempted. A divorced woman, whose husband is still living, may
thus be left entirely without support, unless she have several sons
'liable to draft,' in which case, she may elect one for exemption.
Clause third exempts 'the only son of aged or infirm parent or parents
dependent upon his labor for support.'
It has been decided that a son cannot be exempted under this clause
unless _both_ the parents are 'aged or infirm.' Thus it may happen that,
by reason of bodily or mental infirmity, a father, with a family of
helpless children, may be totally dependent upon the exertions of the
mother and a draftable son. But the law pitilessly takes the son without
possibility of exemption, throwing the entire burden of support upon the
mother.
But no clause of this section is more liable to objection than the
_fourth_, which reads as follows: 'Where there are two or more sons of
aged or infirm parents subject to draft, the father, or if he be dead,
the mother, may elect which son shall be exempt.' It will be observed
that the provision--'dependent upon his labor for support'--is omitted
in this clause. Now, to interpret its language by the legal method of
construction, by the context, it would seem that such dependence were
necessary in order to secure the exemption. For the two clauses
immediately preceding exempt 'the only son of a widow or of aged or
infirm parent or parents _dependent upon his labor for support_. The two
immediately following, exempt 'the brother or father of orphan children
under twelve years of age _dependent upon his labor for support_.' That
is, _four_ of the five clauses referring strictly to this subject, grant
exemption to the applicant only when some one depends upon him for
support. Hence it may be presumed, according to an admitted custom of
legal interpretation, that in the remaining clause, standing between the
other four, the question of dependence, though not expressly _stated_,
is clearly _implied_.
But an 'opinion,' published by the Provost-Marshal General's Bureau for
the guidance of the boards of enrolment, declares that 'the right to
this exemption does not rest upon the parents' dependence on the labor
of their sons for their support. The law does not contemplate any such
dependence.'
What is the result of this decision?
First, it places the wealthy and independent on the same footing with
the indigent and needy, exacting from the one no more service than from
the other.
Second, it is more lenient toward the wealthy citizen who has several
sons liable to draft, than toward the helpless widow who may have but
one.
Third, it makes a distinction against that family which may have
contributed most to the military service.