The New York herald., 1879-11-30


Mr. Labouchere was Three charges had been
suggested and it might have been any one of
the three, or combination of two out of the
three, or a combination of all three. Was it his
conduct" rs regarded the assault or the alleged
assault, conduct" in writing the letter to Mr.
Lawson, or conduct" in publishing that letter in
Tsssth? But he was in the dark as to whether
any one charge singly or the three charges to-
gether were considered sufficiently proved to
the satisfaction of the meeting The inquiry
there did not appear to have been of any sort or
description, either with or without notice, and
it appeared to him that the committee was not
justified in acting thus under rule 20.
ADVICE TO CLUB COMMITTEES.
He stated this for the information of the
committees of all clubs, that where
1T depended upon the Judgment OF q
committee, where power of appeal was
given to anybody, it was most important
that the materials on which the Judgment
was formed should be actually asserted. OF
course that could only be done by proper in
quiry, with notice to the accused, and by taking
evidence on the question of fact before them,
satisfying themselves Of the truth. They could
then form an opinion. That had not been done
in the present case, and, according to his view,
substance their own rule at all. The
jugdmcnt of the committee, with the facts
of the case fully before them, might be
right or might be wrong. With that the Court
had nothing to do. IT. having given the accused
fair notice, and having made due inquiry. the
committee came to the conclusion that the con-
duct of one Of the members OF the club was in
juriOus to its welfare and interests, no judicial
tribunal could interfere with any consequences
which might arise from an opinion thus fairly
formed.
a QUESTION OF A Two-THIRDs VOTE.
The next point he had to consider was this.
He found it provided that in the event of o
member refusing to resign, as Mr. Labouohere
did, it should be competent, by the votes of
two-thirds of the members present. to expel
him, and the committee should at any time
have the power to call general meeting on Civ
ing fortnight's notice, either at the request of
five members of the club or upon their own
responsibility. In the present instance the
meeting was held ON the night Of the 31st of
On+ohor pc1u3ad ~, thu of +bo
1st Of November. That meeting decided to pro-
ceed in very proper way, both by posting
notice in the coffee room of the club and send
ing circular to each Of the members So far
as he was aware there was no common law for
clubs ms to the mode in which notices should be
issued, and where no rule prescribed the mode
it was within the general functions of the club
to say how the notices should be given
on each particular occasion. Some matters con-
habitually used it, and in connection with
these matters posting notice in the coffee room
or the library was very sensible plan to
follow. But more important matters sometimes
arose-matters relating perhaps to some or
ganic change, matters connected with the mode
of conducting the club, matters connected with
the conduct Of particular member. In such
cases it was only right to give notice by cir
cular to those who did not habitually or daily
consideration in order that they might attend
and take part in the discussion.
FOURTEEN FULL DAYS NOTICE.
When the latter course was adopted, the COM
mittee was bound to give fortnight's notice.
In this case the notice was for the 18th of No
veinber. If posted the 1st Of November it
would not be u fortnight's notice. and it ,ras
posted on the LIST of November. The secretary
said that, because the Beefstcal Club opened Mt
one o'clock in the afternoon and did not close
until three in the morning. he considered that
posting next morning was equivalent to
posting the previous day. (Laughter.) lie
had nothing to do with what the secre-
tary thought, but it was not possible
that he could make that out to be
a fortnight's notice. A fortnight had % definite
legal meaning, therefore the secrctary's
notion of q club day could not affect the
question which the court had TO decide. The
notice which was sent out was dated the 31st
of October but that was wrong. The 31st of
October was not the 31st of October according
to the club rules, but simply the LIST of Novem-
Der, 1879, which was meant according to the
calendar, and that notice was not issued on
the 31st of October, but on the 1st of November.
THE MEETING IMPROPERLY CALLED.
In tho next place the meeting was not
properly called. On the one hand il had been