The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-07-17 00:00:00

THE QUARREL AT THE NATIONAL
LIBERAL CLUB:

At Bow-street Police-court on Monday, Dr. Millar,
lately a Parliamentary candidate for Sheffield,
attended before Mr. Bridge for the purpose of apply-
ing for a summons against the secretary and com-
mittee of management of the National Liberal Club,
for what he alleged to be "a most malicious and vin-
dictive libel." Dr. Millar referred to proceedings
at this court in which he was the complainant in a
case of assault. He resigned his membership of
the club, but, thinking he had been somewhat prema-
ture and that he should have submitted the facts to the
committee, he wrote withdrawing his resignation. He
had no reply until June 21, when he received a letter
from the secretary to the effect that he had been told
by the hall porter that he had entered the club pre.
mimes, and reminding him that he had been informed
that he was no longer a member of the club.
He (Dr. Millar) never entered the club after that,
but to his great surprise, when he was at Sheffield,
engaged in electioneering matters, he received a
letcer on June 29, in reply to one he had written on
the 21st, inquiring whether they had power to receive
and decide on an application to resign without having
a meeting. He received a reply on July 8 enclosing
a copy of the following resolution: "That the con-
firm Cu air. Anila. aborp-mentioned ranttar
(referring to the case of assault and proceedings at
this court) is inconsistent with the objects and well-
being of the club, and his membership is hereby can-
celled and his name ordered to be removed from the
list of members of the club." Dr. Millar submitted
that the gentlemen of the committee were acting
ultra vires, as they could have no power to pass a reso-
solution expelling him after he had ceased to be a
member of the club. He therefore characterised the
resolution as a vindictive libel. He was a pronounced
Home Ruler, and if his worship would allow him he
would take off his coat and would show the
effects of stones that had been hurled at him
st Sheffiel,:. His windows were also broken, and all
because he had been dealing with the views of Lord
Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Gladstone.
Ere again asserted that the committee had no light to
interfere with him since he had ceased to be a member
af the club. Mr. Bridge said that he had a right to
bring an action against the club committee, but he did
not see that proceedings could be taken in this court.
Dr. Millar said he was grandnephew to John Hume,
and it would be seen whether ic was a social injury
to him to say that he (Dr. Millar) had been expelled
from a club. He had considered the subject of a
civil acion, and contemplated laying the damages
at £5OOO, but the action could not be tried for four
months, and during that time he would be under the
imputation he complained of. No money damages
could compensate Lim, and there was the extreme
difficulty of proving specific loss. He therefore
applied for process at this court. Mr. Bridge did not
consider the matter constituted a libel, and referred
applicant to his civil remedy.