The New York herald., 1879-11-22

mittee shall call upon him to resign. In the
event of his refusal it shall call general meet
ing, at which it shall be competent for the votes
OF two-thirds OF those present to expel such
MEMBER So far Truth.
ACHILLES IN HIS TENT.
The HERALD correspondent met Mr.. Labou-
chere as he was leaving the Court of Queens
Bench at recess, and asked him if the above
grounds of his appealing to the law were correct.
He replied with smile "that was childlike and
bland that it was possible they might be, but
preserved the reticence usual to an Englishman,
whether in the right or in the wrong, pend
ing the decision of Court Of Justice. Mr..
Montagu Williams was found by your CORE
'spondent in a handsome chamber in the Temple,
reading the Times. He was seated in an
easy chair, over the back of which was
thrown worsted tidy, representing the
American flag. Mr.. Montagu Williams did
not wish to give legal opinion regarding
the right Of the club to expel Mr.. Labouchere
pending the decision of the Master of the Rolls
But he consented to explain this Mr.. Labou-
chere was not expelled on account Of the fracas
nor because of the Objectionable terms of the
letter, but because that letter was printed in
defiance of the order Of the committee to the
effect that he must not personally attack Mr..
Lawson in any publication.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.
Moreover, Mr.. Labouchere stated, in his
speech on the night of his expulsion that he
would abide by the action of the club Mr.
Labouchere further showed his willingness to
accept the decision of the committee by ap-
pointing as tellers two of his personal friends,
Messrs. Pottenser Stevens and Captain Burnaby.
Regarding Mr. Laboucheres second objection,
Mr.. Montagu Williams believed the only person
present who had not voted was Mr. Lawson's
brother Mr.. Albert Levy Lawson, who had,
like Mr.. Labouchere, refrained from motives Of
delicacy. Mr. Labouchere might win on technical
grounds, but the right of the club to expel him
was undOubted. The reason why Mr.. Lawson
was requested to resign was because after the
fracas, when Messrs. Lawson and Labouchere
entered the club, the former said, "Dont
speak to me here have thrashed you outside"
Mr.. Lawson, on consideration, recognized.
AGAMEMNoN AT HOME.
The HERALD correspondent saw Mr.. Lawson
at his residence. He said that the subject of
the fracas was almost exhausted; the question
now was merely legal one. He did not think
Mr.. Labouahere had a leg to stand on, but next
Friday, at the Guildhall Court. he would doubt
less make violent speech, calling him vile
wretch once more, and would then be committed
for trial. Mr.. Lawson, alluding to an Article
in the current number Of TRUTH said :-"This
shows what lunatic Labouchere is-to make
an application for an injunction restraining his
expulsion from the Beefsteak Club, and yet to
PRINT an article which would in any case lead to
his expulsion according to the rules of any club"
Regarding the threat to thrash Labouchere
again, Mr. Lawson said that what he really
threatened was to renew the corporal punish
ment in the event Of Mr.. Labouchere repeating
his attacks on the memory of his uncle, not on
himself and Mr. Labouchere had not since re-
peated the offence
LEGAL PRECEDENTs.
The first decision in case of this kind was
ten years ago. The case was Hopkinson against
the Marquis of Exeter and other members of
the Conservative Club. Hopkinson being a
member of the Conservative Club pledged him
self to vote for three Liberal candidates of his
county. Upon this the Club promptly expelled
him. He contended that, under the cir
cumstances. his expulsion was capricious;
that he was as good a Conservative as
any other MEMBER that no one could
draw the line between strict Conservative and
Conservative of Liberal proclivities. Lord
Romilly, before whom the case was heard.
and who was himself a strong Liberal, decided
in effect that the social character of a club is
lts ulStlHCtiNc icdtuIc, tuit IL tuc Ic1uisltc
majority OF members in the exercise of the dis
cretion given them by the regulations expel
members the Court will not consider whether
this discretion is rightly or wrongly exercised,
and will not go into the circumstances of the
case further than necessary to satisfy itself that
there was not merely capricious and arbitrary
exercise of the discretion; but, His Lordship
added, the discretion in such cases must not be
capricious, must not be merely arbitrary discre-
ton, but must be founded ON judicial grounds.
He further remarked :-''If the decision be of
this character there is no appeal"
THE ''RAG AND FAMIsH"
This decision, unimpeached until 1878, when
the case of Fisher against the Army and Navy