MR. BELL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1372, 24 February 1912, Page 8

MR. BELL.

AN ECHO OF THE ELECTIONS. "PICKINGS" Mr. W. H. D. BELL (Wellington Suburbs) said that members had been summoned not to debate the issue, but 1 to vote upon it. He did uot think thai : the country .expected' any speeches be .• yond those of the. Leaders of the two parties, and if-the result of the debate was to be such speeches as that,of the member' for Grey Lynn, that debate was serving no useful purpose. Mr. Bell explained that his purpose was to make himself clear . regarding words which were alleged to have been used by him during his election campaign. He. understood that objection was taken to tho word "pickings," and while ho did not remember whether he had used that word or not, he believed that'was.quite possibly the term ho would have used to convey his meaning. His interpretation of-the word did not correspond with that placed upon' liim; what he intended to, convey was that moneys were paid in connection • with ' ' ordinary charges of loan flotation—and it was to those payments that he referred. In its report of his speech, The Dominion did not use tho word "pickings," but as he desired to assume for the moment that he had used tho word, ho quoted the report .in , tho "New' Zealand Times/' which reported him to have said, "Someone has to be paid for getting tho loan through. Someone has to get the pickings. Why should not you and I know who' got those picking?" Obviously, his remarks were a complaint at tho refusal of the Prime Minister to .give information with regard to the cost of the flota- . tion of loans. Sir Joseph Ward: I. never had refused. , Explaining to tho Prime Minister. Mr. Bell continued that he was making an explanation for the benefit of the Pritno Minister, who seemed to have mis.undorstood him. It was quito obvious that his complaint was direotcd at the alleged refusal of tho Prime Minister to give information. Had he intended .to propose that moneys had improperly found their way into the pockets of anyone, he 'would have made his meaning a great deal 'clearer. His ihfceution was not to attack tho Prime Minister or anyone else on tho ■ground that moneys had been improperly received. Apparently that was the idea in the mind-of the member for Christchurch North,' when he looked at him while.complaining that attacks had been made upon tho Primo Minister. • During the debato of last session with regard to his speech, members had interpreted his remark as an attack upon the Government, the Prime Minister, or the AgentGeneral, but the "New Zealand Times," though it attacked his speech every day for a week, did not assume that tho word "pickings" which appeared in (hat journal's report, contained any suggestion of impropriety. It had also been suggested that by his use of tho word "jobbery lie had imputed that some members of the Ministrv had made improper profits. He had taficn the earlievst opportunity in a speech two days later to make it clear -that when he spoke of jobbery he did not mi>an that any financial advantage was gained by anv member of the Ministry, or that any of them was a penny richer bv whiit he called a "job. _ Mr. Bell clearly explained that ho had intended no attack noon the Prime Minister or any other Minister, or upon the AgentGeneral. He added that last session the case for the prosecution was heard in the House when he had no opportunity of conducting the case for the, defence. But the case had been judged by the electors of Wellington Suburbs, and their verdict Would be found, in tho records of the general election. Suggestions had also been made that his speech was supplied by the party, _ and as he was the youngest candidate in the camnai<m, it was likely that to him the Reform Party would extend any_ assistance it gave to candidates on its side of politics. He had never received a speech from the party; every word of his speech came from his own brains, and from no one else's. Mr. Bell added that he did not think any elector had interpreted his remarks in the manner they had been misunderstood by members, and having clearly explained his intention, he hoped the last had been heard of the matter.

THE PREMIER SPEAKS. THE FIVE MILLION LOAN. Sir Joseph WARD said that as the hon. gentleman had referred to him in the matter, he wanted to say that he acquitted Mr. Bell personally in every possible way of tho impression created by his remarks at the time. But ho wanted to say Hint it was not tho impression that ho (Sir Joseph AVard) formed of tho utterance of a public man, but tho impression that the public formed in connection 'with it that caused an unfair impression to be created against a public man. Tho hon. gentleman had compared him to the secretary of a football club. Ho wished to direct Mr. Bell's attention to the fact that on tho occasion in question—a debate on the subject of tho (Wo million loan—he had placed before the House a cablegram from tho High Commissioner, in which he stated that he could not furnish the. details required in connection with the loan for tho reason that a. portion of it. had not then been floated. Tho details came to hand on January 10, and were laid before the House at the first opportunity. In spite of the fact that he had thus furnished information regarding the loan at the earliest possible moment, there had been a general impression throughout the country at the last election in the minds of hundreds and thousands of peoplo that ho had deliberately withheld information about tho loan for an ulterior purpose. ~ ' • Mr. Isitt explained that, when he spoke in a previous debate of lack of chivalry; on the part of Oppositionists,, in view of charges made against Ministers, he had not referred to Mr. Dell, but to members who were present.