Sub-Committee Sitting. 4 March. He* wanted already to move his 
resolution, according to which the Paris Administration was to be 
composed as follows: Fribourg, Vingard, Limousin, 3 members to 
be designated by Lefort, Schily as a sort of umpire. 

Sub-Committee Sitting. 6 March. He reproduces that motion. 

Sitting of the Central Council. 7 March. He allowed the appoint- 
ment of Schily to pass without division, that is, he accepted it, 
speaking in a parliamentary sense. 

After this had taken place, he writes in hot-haste to Paris, even 
before he had the Resolutions in his hand. He expected, as he said 
(14 March), that the Paris Administration would protest against 
Schily. As by Resolution V (Resolution V. The Administratian at 
Paris having expressed its readiness to acknowledge a direct delegation 
from the Central Council, the Council accordingly appoints Citizen 
Schily to be its delegate to the said Administration.”) Schily was 
only accredited to that Administration, his appointment could only 
be protested against by ,them. 

Having failed with them, Lubez conspires with the brothers of 
his lodge, to declare Schily’s appointment the cause of their 
withdrawal.*”” 
He puts himself in this awkward position: He protests against 
the Paris Administration in the name of Lefort, and he protests 
against Schily in the name of the Paris Administration which 
represents the French branch, etc. 

On the remark of Mr. Fox (last sitting of Central Council) that 
this forgetfulness of Schily’s nationality on 4 and 6 March, and his 
vivid recollection of it on March 14 could only be accounted 
for by his wish to revenge himself because of the slight he 
thought Mr. Lefort was put to, he accepted this plain explana- 
tion. 

His mean insinuations: 

l-stly) As if the introductory words of Resolution V had been 
inserted as a catch-vote on false pretences. These words rest upon 
facts, Mr. Schily’s open letter, brought over by Lubez, read on 
March 7 in presence of Tolain, etc.; secondly Mr. Schily’s report, 
communicated to the Sub-Committee; lastly the resolutions passed by 
the meeting of 24th February at Paris.**° The words were only 
inserted to avoid even the appearance of dictatorship on the part 
of the Central Council. 

2-ndly) There had on March 7 time been killed by personal 
altercations in order to hurry the acceptance of the 3 last 
resolutions; carry them by surprise. 

3-rdly) Mr. Schily was no ouvrier. Rejected as principle by 
Resolution II.* Schily had only to act privately with the Paris 
Administration; Lefort was to act upon the public stage before 
the world in the name of the Association. The cases not analo- 
gous. 

As to Lefort. 

He asks us to appoint him Defender General in the French 
press. We do so because we suppose him to act in understanding, 
and in concurrence with Tolain, etc. This nomination so obtained, 
he turns afterwards against us into a legal title. On Tolain’s letter, 
and before Lubez was sent to Paris, we cancel this appointment, as 
far as Mr. Lefort’s name and public position is concerned. (We 
reduce it to this: he is allowed to write articles not signed by 
himself, but by an ouvrier—a thing which he might have done 
without our consent.) That such is the case, results from an angry 
letter he then wrote to Lubez, but he yielded. The Paris meeting 
of February 24th committed only this blunder that it protested 
against a resolution that had ceased to exist. And upon this 
Mr. Lefort, or his friends at London, feign to forget that he had 
already given up the post he was named to. He even menaces us 
to warn all democrats against us, forgetting that we can warn against 
him, if necessary. 

He and his man Lubez say that he is not moved by personal 
ambition. He only wants a political guarantee. Well. We appoint 
Vingard, a man who represents more guarantees than Lefort et Le 
Lubez put together. Having been appointed, Mr. Vingard turns 
into a nonentity for Lefort and Lubez. The only thing they could 
say against his proposal by Tolain, etc., afterwards confirmed by 
us, is this: that it was not at the right time communicated to 
Lefort. Thus this miserable point of etiquette is their last pretence 
of opposition, etc. 

International character of the Society endangered, and power of the 
Council to appoint ambassadors. 
The class character of this movement. Républicains formalistes. 

1) Pas de résolution contre Schily; Marx déclare la nomination de 
Mons. Schily comme non-avenue et qu'il l’avait seulement acceptée 
parce qu’elle a passé unanimement. 

2) The instructions given to Le Lubez to communicate to the 
French Administration and Lefort (in the sitting of Council,” 7th 
March), run thus: “In case no compromise be arrived at, the Council 
declare that the group Lefort, after having taken out their cards 
of membership, will have the power, under our Statutes (see §7), 
to form a local branch society.” ‘ 

In the sitting of the Council of March 14 this private instruction 
was changed into a resolution, because no compromise could be 
arrived at. This was the only resolution passed. 

(There was the other resolution passed that Lubez had to 
communicate literally to both sides the whole of the resolution.)