The New York herald., 1879-11-30
the Laboucnere Case.

In our cable dispatches to-day will be
found an extended and lucid report OF the
Judgment of the Master of the Rolls in the
case of the recent attempted expulsion OF
Mr.. Labouchere from the Beefsteak Club, by
which it is held that this gentleman has,
in fact, not been expelled, because of the
irregularity Of the proceedings taken with
view to that end, and by which it is
ordered that he ''be restored to oil rights
and privileges of the club"-the costs of the
litigation to be paid by his opponents.
The judgment and the statement of the
grounds of personal right upon which it is
based will be of interest to all members of
whether called clubs or described by other
names, inasmuch as they rest the case upon
principles of common justice that must be
the same in the laws Of every country. In
it's broadest sense the judgment holds
that the constitution and rules OF the
club, as they are its laws, to which
every one has subscribed, and to
which all must submit, must be as
strictly and justly applied when appealed
to for the protection of an individual as
when welded in the interest Of discipline;
and consequently that since they provide a
regular procedure for the expulsion of Of
Tending or delinquent members nobody
can be expelled save by steps in specific
accordance with that procedure, and that the
steps for the expulsion of Mr.. Labouchere
were not so taken, and are, there
fore, not valid. It is declared by
one of the rules Of the Beefsteak
Club that if the committee, "upon inquiry"
shall be convinced that o member has been
guilty of conduct "injurious to the welfare"
of the club it may call upon him to resign,
and if he refuses expel him by the method
described in other rules; and the Court holds
that if the committee acts strictly under
this authority no tribunal can, in the name
of law or equity, impeach its action but
it's violation of the authority affords proper
ground for legal remedy. In this case
the committee, it is adjudged, did not pro-
ceed "upon inquiry" 1t did not give the
delinquent an opportunity to be heard in
his own defence-not even so much of an
opportunity US OuI NAayOT BaNo tuo ucllu-
quent Police Commission ners-and thus at
the very outset it vitiated its action.
Furthermore, no meeting of the club
has power to expel member. save
one held after fourteen days notice.
and the meeting which voted his expulsion
was without that power, because it was
called on the 1st and held on the 14th--or
at thirteen days notice. Also it is the rule
of the club that an expulsion must be
voted by two-thirds of those present. On
this occasion one hundred and seventeen
were present and seventy-seven voted for
expulsion-which is not two-thirds. Those
who in such a case do not vote practically
support the accused. Altogether this is a
very interesting judgment, and puts in u
queer light the capacity to understand
plain principles of justice of the seventy
seven English gentlemen who set them
selves up as authorities in this case How
can these men, who prove unable to apply
in simple honesty the plain rules Of their
own social organization, be supposed to
Judge fairly the nice ethical points in
volved in the conduct of othersp