MR. DILLON BELL AND THE WELLINGTON PRESS.

West Coast Times, Issue 281, 17 August 1866, Page 1 (Supplement)

MR. DILLON BELL AND THE WELLINGTON PRESS.

On the subject of the IIous« of Representatives and the Wellington newspapers, the correspondent of the " Lyttelton Times '' has the following :—: — The only relief from absolute dulness in the House of Representatives has been a very strange quarrel between Mr Dillon Bell and the newspapers, I think Mr Bell began it, and this was the way. A roomy gallery had been set apart for reporters in a convenient part of the House, before the session began. But as both papers here declared at once their intention not to publish full reports of debates, the House Committee, of which Mr Bell is chairman, recommended the removal of the press representatives to a smaller and less commodious gallery. In making this proposal Mr Bell used some slighting remarks about the Wellington journals. The papers replied in anything but a dignified manner, and not without offensive expressions towards Mr Bell personally. Very soon after the question of granting a sum of money to enable the newspapers to report debates fully, came before the House, and Mr Bell chose to be doubly severe upon the Wellington press, during his remarks upon this question. He accused them, among other things, of printing immoral and indecent advertisements, instead of devoting their space to its proper object. To this the editors made, perhaps, the mo^t injudicious reprisals possible. They permitted local paragraphs to appear, letters to be written to them by reporters, advertisements to be inserted, and other indirect means to be used for abusing, mortifying, and ridiculing Mr Bell. At tho same time they appear to have come to a joint conclusion never to report another word which he might say. From that time to this the name of Mr Dillon Bill has never once appeared in the reporting columns of either newspaper. When his speech on Separation was thus omitted, Mr FitzGerald called the attention of the House to the subject. Enough was said to prove that all parties in the House thought tliis form of retaliation to be not only unfair to Mr Bell, but a breach of privilege towards the House itself ; inasmuch as what professed to be a report of ifcs debates was garbled and rendered incorrect by wilful omission. But as po one was prepared to propose a motion to that effect, the subject dropped, a hope being entertained that the newspapers would quietly take the hint and give up their personal hostility to Mr Bell. They did not. Without saying a word about it, except that a "question of privilege was discussed," both papers continued to ignore Mr Bell's existence, and never mentioned his name in anj' debate. I told you yesterday about Mr Bell and Mr WhitLiker, and Mr O'Rorke, and how the first named gentleman had an elaborate statement to make in defence of his character. The papers said not a word ahout the explanation, though the charge was reported - in full. Mr Bell's patience seems to have given way upon this, for lie yesterday appealed to the House, not, he said, that he complained of any personal injury, but after what had been said on a previous occasion, he thought the Housp should take notice that its expressed wishes in this matter were deliberately neglected. The Speaker stopped Mr Bell, and required him to propose a motion, if he had anything to complain of. Mr Bell did submit a resolution, to tho effect that the reporters should be summoned and required to explain what i) structions they had from their employers ; but this was deemed irregular. Mr Bell asked what course could be taken. The Speaker said the practice was to move that the article complained of be read by the Clerk ; then to move that it was a breach of privilege ; and if this fact were established on a vote of the House, then, then to move that somebody be called to account for it. This would have been all very well, only the first step was impossible ; the " offensive article" did not exist ; it was the omission of an article Avhich constituted the offence, and that the Clerk evidently could not read. The subject had to drop again ; and I see in this morning's paper again the simple remark that a question of privilege was discussed, and nothing more, But it is rumored that Mr FitzGeralci will set to work to forge a thunderbolt which shall reach the reporter's gallery. As a finishing touch to the display of impotence yesterday, it was proposed to order the reporter's gallery to be cleared ; but the Speaker pointed out that "all strangers" must be required to withdraw if the motion were made at all ; and the motion was withdrawn.