_To the Editor of the_ DAILY POST.
Sir,--In your impression of this day's _Daily Post_ it is
observed that your Mr. Simpson, the recognised Dudley reporter
of the _Daily Post_, has thought fit to advert to what he
conceives to be "an indignity" offered to the reporters of the
press, at the dinner given to the Earl of Dudley last evening.
As one of the Committee of Management in that matter, I would
wish, by your permission, to rectify some of the erroneous
impressions which your remarks are calculated to convey to the
public.
I beg to inform your readers that the "Press" was one of the
"first considerations" of the committee at its meetings;
as a proof of which your Mr. Simpson obtained, through the
influence of the committee, the exclusive privilege to report
the proceedings of the Himley deputation, and received that
distinguished recognition rarely accorded to the "Fourth
Estate."
The unprecedented rush for tickets to do honour to the Earl of
Dudley, and the very confined nature of the space for dining at
the disposal of the committee, necessarily compelled that body
to adopt "extraordinary means" for the purpose of giving as
many of the public as possible an opportunity of "doing honour
to whom honour is due."
Under these pressing circumstances, the representatives of the
press were respectfully solicited to accommodate the committee
by dining at its expense, truly "downstairs," because there was
"no available dining space" upstairs, with the clear intimation
that they would be accommodated with seats, wines, and dessert
in the dining-room as soon as the cloth was drawn. This offer
the egotistical representatives of the press indignantly
declined to accept, and, unfortunately for the gratification of
the public, forgot their quota of courtesy due to the committee
by neglecting to forward their portentous decision until it was
too late for the committee to procure additional reporters.
These, Sir, are the naked facts of the case, and however much
it is to be regretted that the interests of the press should
get into disrepute by an assumption on behalf of its reporters,
it must now be left to the dispassionate public to determine
whether the committee would have been justified in displacing
a number of gentlemen to make way for the reporters of the
"Fourth Estate" (merely at the time of dining), and whether the
press has the right to arrogate to itself, on all occasions,
"the chief corners in the temple."
I am, your obedient servant,
C. F. G. CLARK, High Bailiff.
_Dudley, February 29th, 1860._
[In a few remote places, and in those circles of society into
which modern notions of courtesy have imperfectly penetrated,
we still find some lingering belief that the Press and its
representatives are very much in the position of singers at a
feast, to have a plate sent out to them in the corridor, and
a chair in the windiest corner of the room when the cloth is
drawn. But it is not often that we have the idea so honestly
expressed. According to Mr. Clark, the accommodation of the
Press was one of the earliest considerations of the committee,
who seem to have balanced the profit of admitting 127 diners
against the propriety of restricting that number to 125 and
two reporters, by whose agency the whole of the vast district
through which we circulate would in effect have shared in
the honour done to the noble guest, and in the eloquence
with which that honour was recognised. The committee, in its
shortsightedness, deliberately chose to make room for two
diners more, under the impression that they would manage
the Press somehow,and the spirit of courtesy in which that
"management" was undertaken may be inferred from the tone
of the remarkable letter of our correspondent. It appears
that by some gracious act of condescension our reporter was
actually allowed to accompany a deputation to Himley Hall, "a
distinguished recognition," quoth Mr. Clark, "rarely accorded
to the Fourth Estate." The gentleman who can assume these grand
airs, which the master of Himley Hall himself would be about
the last to dream of, was very well qualified to execute and
excuse the orders of the committee in asking the reporters to
come in with the dessert. We quite approve of their refusal
to submit to this servants' hall treatment. They have no
right to expect, and as far as we know, they never lay claim
to the chief places at feasts; but so long as their refusal
is expressed with courtesy they have our entire approval
when they decline to submit to treatment, the result not of
accident or oversight--this we are sure they would be the
first to make allowance for--but, as the "early consideration"
shows, deliberately resolved upon. It was not until all the
tickets were sold that this dining-down-stairs project was
made known to our reporter, or we would have taken good care
that he should have had such accommodation as a guinea could
have given him. It is very droll, in the midst of all that is
silly in this letter, to hear it charged against the reporters
that they didn't study the convenience of these gracious
gentlemen, so far as to allow them the opportunity of obtaining
"other reporters." Other reporters! One would imagine these
commodities were as easy to procure as change for a shilling.
But suppose they were provided; we say it for ourselves, and we
dare say the same for the majority, if not the whole, of our
contemporaries, that the product of the "other reporters" would
have found its way to the office waste-paper basket. As it is,
the committee have made a pretty mess of it. They have dined
the Earl truly, but they have contrived to rob the honour of
half its graciousness and all its value, by denuding it of the
crowning grace of publicity.--ED. _Daily Post_.]
* * * * *
_To the Editor of the_ DAILY POST.
Sir,--There is a paragraph in your edition of to-day respecting
the banquet last evening, given by the town to the Earl of
Dudley, in which the writer is facetious, regarding the
indignant treatment to which it was proposed to submit the
gentlemen of the Fourth Estate, and their noble protest against
such treatment. Doubtless your sense of what is just and fair
will admit a statement on the part of the committee of that
dinner.
On Wednesday up to four o'clock 111 tickets had been
sold--bought and paid for. The Mayor had been requested to
reserve four for various parties, and six were kept for the
invited guests, making in all 121. On Wednesday evening four
more were issued, making 125; and on Monday evening, when the
committee next met, a list of a dozen applications could not
even be considered. Besides this 125, it was expected that
some few guests might be present, and there were at least
three (Mr. Melville, Mr. Campbell, and another); and careful
and accurate measurement of the room had given as a result the
utter impossibility of putting more than 128 into it. Where
then, I ask, could the reporters be accommodated at dinner,
being, as they might be, some six or eight? Arrangements were
made for their dining, and as soon as space could be obtained,
by the absence of the waiters, a table was placed for their
accommodation in the centre of the room. We were perfectly
willing to treat them as well as circumstances would allow, but
we could not do what was palpably impossible.
I have only to add that a full report of the banquet shall be
forwarded to you for Saturday's _Journal_. The committee would
have been best pleased to have a professional report; but in
default of that must do the best they can to preserve a record
of that portion of the events of the day.
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
ONE OF THE COMMITTEE.
[Our reply to this is that there were only two papers
represented, our own and the _Wolverhampton Chronicle_. The
committee should have reserved two places for those reporters,
no matter what the demand was. That is a prime article in the
creed of all public dinner-giving committees, and a wise one we
think.--ED. _Daily Post._]
Shortly after these civic proceedings were accomplished, the noble Earl
laid the Foundation Stone of the Blind Asylum in the Tipton Road, which
was built at his Lordship's entire cost, as a home and maintenance
for those unfortunate miners and stone quarry men, who are constantly
losing their sight by explosions in his Lordship's extensive mines. In
consequence of these sightless men refusing to avail themselves of this
charitable hospitality, this noble structure was tenantless for some
years, until it was so liberally given up by the Earl of Dudley to the
Trustees appointed by the late Joseph Guest, Esq., "for the purpose
of founding a hospital in Dudley," which has since that time been of
incalculable benefit to the working classes, and now assumes vast
usefulness as our renowned "Guest's Hospital." The following ceremony
took place on that occasion:--