The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-06-01 00:00:00

•'THE QUEEN v. ALLEN."

In the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases reserved,
the above cause has been heard, which was reserved by
Baron Martin from the last aasime, and was briefly this :—lt
was an indictment for bigamy, the prisoner—a secoud wife
b dng alive—having married a niece of a former wife, de-
ceased. There had been in two similar cases decisions in this
country by single Judges at the midges that the offence of
bigamy was committed, though the tmcond marriage was In-
valid; but the learned Baron reserved the point in deference
to the judgment of the majority of the Irish Judges—seven
to four—in a more recent case before the Court for Crown
Cases Reserved in Ireland, and also a decision of •Mr. Justice
Creswell in the Divorce Court, and the opinion of Lord Chief
Justice Tindal, in the case of the " Queen r. " in the
House of Lords, that the second marriage must be valid.
The Court in this case seemed, during the argument, toenton.
lain a contrary opinion, but bad taken time to consider their
"

pr-x-

judgments. -
The Lord Chief Justice now delivered the unani-
mous judgment of the Court, overruling the opinion of
the majority of the Irish Judges, and affirming the
contrary view of the minority and two of the English
Judges—that the off once of bigamy had been com-
mitted. But for the statutory disability to marry the
niece of a deceased wife, the prisoner would no doubt,
have been guilty of the offence. The question was
whether the statutory enactment that such a marriave
should be "null and void" altered the character of
the prisoner's act SA to going through the ceremony of
marriage, so as to make it not amount to the crime
of bigamy. The same question in effect had arisen
before Lord Denman, and also in an analogous case
before another of the English Judges, and they had
both held that the offence of bigamy was under circum-
stances committed. This Coart would have had no hesi-
tation in arriving at a similar conclusion had itinot been
for the caae in Ireland so closely analogeus to the present,
and which, from the high authority of the Court, wan
entitled to the moat attentive consideration. They
hail, therefore, taken time to consider their judgment.
The question there was decided, by seven Judges
against four, against the prosecution. But after giving
the fullest consideration to the reasoning of the
majority of the Judges, this Court found themselves
unable to concur in it, and had arrived unanimously
at the opposite concluaion—that the opinion of the
dissentient Judges, and of the two English Judges,
was right. The reasoning of the majority of the
Irish Judges was mainly founded upon the argument
that in the enactment of the statute against bigamy,
that "any person who, being married, shall marry
another person," the words "shall marry" in the
second clause of the sentence must mean the same
as the words "being married" in the first clause;
and that as there the words clearly meant a
valid and legal marriage so they most in the other
part; and that so, to constitute the offence, the second
marriage mwit—apart from its being bigamous—be as
valid as the first. The authorities relied upon for this
view were the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in
the House of Lords, n the case of the "Queen is
Milles," and the decision of Mr. Justice Cresswell in
the Divorce Court. But as to the former case, the
point now in question did not really arise, for the
question there was as to the validity of the first marriage
not the second; so that the opinion of Lord Chief Justice
Tindal was extra judicial, find by way only of argu-
ment or illustration; and to this it must be added that he
expressly said the other Judges concurred only in his
conclusion, and that his reasoning was his own. There
was this difference also between that case and the pre-
sent—that there, by reason of a statutory prohibition,
the form of marriage was not in itself valid or effectual
as between the parties—one of them being a Pro-
testant, and the marriage ceremony being performed
by a Boman Catholic priest ; and so in the case before
Mr. Justice Cresswell, the ceremony of marriage
was not properly performed and was not legal by
the local law, and all that he decided was that
the second marriage must be in a form recognized
by law. The distinction was adverted to by Mr.
Justice Christian, one of the Irish Judges in the case
referred to. The majority, however, went the
length of overruling the decision of Lord Denman, and
their judgment proceeded upon the broad ground
that the second marriage must be as valid as the first.
This Court, however, differed wholly from that view,
and were prepared to hold that if the form of marriage
had been used which the law recognized as binding,
whether applies ale to the parties or not, the offence
was committed. The decision of this Court went upon
the ground taken by the minority of the Irish
Judges. When it is said that the second marriage must
be as valid as the first, it must be borne in mind that a
bigamous marriage is always invalid. An exception,
therefore, must be ingrafted on the proposition, and
that certainly involves a departure from the literal
words of the statute. But when it once becomes
necessary to seek the meaning of the terms of a
statute, the true rule of construction is to look to the
purpose of the enactment, the mischief to be
prevented, and the remedy to be applied. And
on this view it could not he considered that the
second marriage must be as valid as the first, or
that the mischief to be prevented was polygamous
marriages. Polygamy—in the sense of a person
having two wives, or husbands- was foreign to all
our ideas, and was practi sally unknown in this country.
whereas bigamy, in the modern acceptation of the
term, was unfortunately too frequent. It was always
resorted to by one party in fraud of the law, sometimes
by both, in order to give the colour of a marriage which
did not really exist. The ground, however, on which
it was made penal was that it involved an outrage on
public decency and morality. It created a public
scandal by applying a form and ceremony, which the
law only allowed to a real and legal marriage, to one
which was wholly colourable and fictitious. It was
obvious that the outrage and scandal would not be less
because the parties tothe second marriage were under an
incapacity to contract matrimony, and not lesser, because
one of them had induced the other to go through a form
of marriage known to be generally binding, but inappli-
cable in the particular case. Such instances as these, in-
volving as they did all the public scandal and the out-
rage upon public decency and morality, were within
the mischief which it was the object of the statute to
punish and prevent. And the Court were of opinion
that they ought net to frustrate the (ipso-alien of a very
salutary statute, by putting so narrow a construction
upon it as would exclude such a cases, the present —if
the words are capable of such a construction as would ex-
clude it. Now the words "shall-marry another," may
well be taken to mean " shall go through the form and
ceremony of marriage with another person." The
words were fully capable of being so construed without
being forced rjr strained, and as a narrower con-
struction would have the effect of leaving a portion
of the mischief untouched, which it must have been
the intention of the Legislature to provisle against,
and thereby of bringing a grave reproach upon the
Court, they thought they were warranted in in-
ferring that the wools were used in sense referred to,
and that they should best give effect to the Legis-
lative intention by holding such a case as the pre-
sent within their meaning. To assume that the words
must have such a construction as would exclude it, be-
cause the second marriage must be one which, but for
the bigamy, would have been as binding as the first,
appeared to be begging the whole question, and to be
running directly contrary to the wholesome canon of
construction which prescribed that where the language
would admit slit, a statutory enactment ehent be so
construed as to make the remedy coextensive with the
mischief it was intended to prevent. In thus holding
it was not at all necessary to say that forms of mar-
riage unknown to the law (as in the case before Mr.
Justice Creswell) would suffice to Leiug a case within
the operation of the statute. It must not he underetood
that every fantastic form of marriage to which parties
might think proper to resort, or that a marriage cere-
mony performed by an unauthorized person or in an un-
authorized place would be a " marrying " within the
meaning of the Act. It was sufficient to hold, as
they did, that where a person already barred by an ex
isting marriage went through a form of marriage
known to and recognised by the law as capable of pro-
ducing a valid marriage for the purpose cf a pretended
and fictitious marriage, the case was not the less
within the statutory prohibition by reason of any
special circumstances which, independently of the
bigamous character of the marriage, might constitute
a legal disability in the particular parties, or make the
form of marriage resorted to specially inapplicable in
their individual case. The Court, therefore, were
unanimous on these grounds in holding the conviction
sia I in the present case right.
,naerica I

MAXIM FOR THE DERBY DAY.
There's many a slip.
'Twis the race and the tip. —Punch.
•
THE AGRICULTURAL LABOUR
QUESTION IN NOTTS.
A largely attended special meeting of the Notts I
Chamber of Agriculture was held in the Town-hall,
Nottingham, oil Saturday, for the purpose of discuss-
ing the question of agricultural labour. The chair was
occupied by the Duke of St. Albans, President of the
Chamber; and amongst those present were Viscount
Galwey, M.P., the Hon. G. Itlonekton, M.P., Mr.
Hihlyard, M. P., Mr. Musters, &c.
The Chairman said it was difficult to suppose, when
other trades had adopted the principle of combination,
that the agricultural class would fail for any length of
time to form unions, but the agricultural world seemed,
from the seeonnts in the newspapers, to consider itself
launched into an unexpected crisis. F, r the future,
however, agricultnral unions, and possibly strikes for
increased wages, must hum part of the considerations
of the farmer. He thought no one would attempt to
stamp o these onions by acts of tyranny against their
members. If the p ffilic-house was to be the centre,
most evil results would, in his opinion, follow the
formation of agricultural unions ; but if, on the other
hand the labourers were but gaining a sense of
greater responsibility, there would be no reason
to regret these combinations. The question most
be met by the good sense of the employers, and by
moderation on the part of the men. They nolo: not
wince from looking into the condition of their labourers,
and the labourer should courtier whether he has been
justly paid for the work be gives the farmer before he
lends an ear to the agitators. flaring mentioned the
fact that the labourer in England was paid better than
in any other country in Europe, his Grace observed
that his decided opinion was that everything between
the labourer and employer should be paid in coin. The
agitators said that the increase of wages must come
out of the rents but that meant a depreciation of
landed property in the country. The real question was
whether the loss would fall upon the producer or
the consumer. In his opinion, the consumer would
have to bear it.
Mr. Storer moved,
That in considering the present state of the labour ques-
tion, this meeting recommend that any difference that may
arise should ho settled between employer and employed with-
out the interfereuee Of a third party ; that it deprecates coo-
binatiou on either site to 10. the pi: • ; ! 70Oras it
should be left to regulate itself by the law of supply and de-
mand and that it strongly disapproves of the interference
of paid agitators, who create disaffection between different
chimes for their own interested motives."
He contended that the condition of the labourer was
not nearly so bad as had been represented by interested
agitators. This opinion was endorsed by Mr. Neville,
I who seconded the resolution.
Mr. Walters thought the condition of the labourers
ought to be improved, and complained of the great
want of proper house accommodation for them. hg
considered they had behaved wonderfully well during
the agitatiiiii.
Mr. Gilbert argued that since 1835 the rate of agri-
cultural wages had risen 50 percent. Other members

of the Chamber having spoken, the motion was put and
unanimously carried.
A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the

THE LABOUR QUESTION IN WARWICK-
SHIRE. _

The projected Conference between the Warwickshire
Chamber of Agriculture and the Labourers' Union
took place on Saturday last, at the Shire-hall, War-
wick. Tile representatives of the Chamber were the
Chairman, Mr. John Ford, of Pontland Lawn,
Leamington; Mr. G. F. Muntz, of Umberslade hall ;
and Mr. J. Burberry, Kenilworth Chase; and the
Union by Mr. J. Arch. the leader of the move-
ment ; Mr. E. Haynes, of Batley; and Mr.
Arnold, of Hampton in Arden. The Conference was
conducted in private, but each side had private
notes taken, if required, for future reference. The
Union submitted, as the requirements of the labourers,
the resolutions adopted at the Regent Hotel, some six
weeks ago, at the meeting presided over by the Hon.
Auberon Herbert. The Chamber of Agriculture re-
presentatives admitted the right of the labourers to
form a Union, but pointed out what they considered
unfair in the labourers' proposals, which were discussed
in a friendly and amicable manner for nearly three
hours. No resolution was adopted; but it is hoped
the Conference will produce good results.

MR. FOLJAMBE ON THE WAGES
QUESTION.
Mr Foljambe, MR. for East Retford, in presiding
at an Odd Fellows' anniversary dinner in that town,
alluded at some length to the present agitation in the
labour-market among the agrietural labourers and the
builders. He said he rejoiced exceedingly that in
Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and Derbyshire farmers
were meeting the wishes of their labourers for higher
wages, and he hoped the shameful and disgraceful
rate of wages in the South would soon be raised to
that ia the North of England. This increment would
either have to be made up by farmers laying land in ,
grass which had previously been under cultivation, and
thus reducing the production of food ; by the em-
ployment of more machinery and a reduction-of manual
labour ; by giving up their farms, which, in the case of
small holdings, were stepping-stones for an industrious
MHZ who tried to rise ; or by the landlords lowering the
rent, which would fall very hard on that large class of
landowners who owned only 500 or 000 acres. With
regard to the builders, he reminded the meeting that
there was only no much money to be invested in
buildings, and if more wages were to be paid, fewer
buildings would have to be erected, and, consequently,
less labour would be employed. From these consider-
ations he warned them against trying to obtain a false
or fictitious rise in wages, while at the same time he
would earnestly advocate a liberal dealing by employers
with their workpeople.