The Bee-Hive. — 1872-04-27 (London, England)

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION.  A fully attended' ;fleeting of the Oeneral Council of the International Working Men's Association was held at the Council-room, Oxford-street, London, on Saturday; "Citizen" Longuet in the chair. The statements made by Mr. Baillie Cochrane in the debate upon the International in the House of Commons were brought under consideration, and much indignation, we are informed, was expressed by several members of the Council at what they alleged to be the gross misrepresentation of facts by Mr. Cochrane and other speakers. -A manifesto was drawn up and. adopted, 'and. ordered to be issued to the members and the public, pointing out the "false statements" and misrepresentations made during the debate. This " manifesto " says :—" The gist of Mr. Cochrane's speech was contained in the part in ' which he stated that he should be able to show that the Commune of Paris, now the International, was in reality one, and. that the International Society, located in London, had given orders to the Commune to burn Paris and murder the hosteges. Now, what proof of the truth of this statement did Mr. Cochrane bring forward? Why, he added, only last week Eugene Dupont was arrested in Paris, where he had gone secretly from this country. Now this Eugene Dupont was a member of the Commune and also a member of the International Society. Unfortunately for Mr. Cochrane's argument, M. A. Dupont, the member of the Commune who has been arrested in Paris, was not a member of the International, and M. Eugene Dupont, who is a member of the International., was not a member of the Commune at any time." The manifesto then goes on to refute other statements' in the speech of Mr. Cochrane. It was signed by all the members of the Council, 50 in number, of whom 36 are Englishmenxepresenting various organisations of working men and trade lkocieties.  Mr. Leatham, M.P. for Huddersfield, has nAldressed a letter to his eonstituents, in which h e contradicts the rumours of his retirement, and. declares that he is warmly attached to his constituency, which attachment he believes is reciprocated.  A Bill for the punishment of drunkenness has been discussed in the French Assembly. It was opposed by M. Testelin, a medical man, who declared it to be an attempt at legislation which would certainly fail. Fines and imprisonment were of no use; it was only by improving the moral and material condition of the people that drunkenness was to be diminished. The Bill, too, was evidently directed against the poor, and not against the rich, who were more culpable when they indulged to excess, as they knew better, and bad not the excuse of misery. M. Laboulaye defended the Bill, and maintained that the necessity of penal legislation on the subject had been felt in all times, and it might just as well be urged that laws against murder and robbery were of no use because they failed to altogether repress those crimes. The first article, which contains the principle of the Bill, was then passed; but ultimately but little of the original measure will probably remain, owing the amendments hereafter to be brought forward. The Bill owes its origin to the idea that.the Commune was due to drink.