The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARMA lIENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THis Dar.
The SPEAKER took the chair at two o'clock.
VACCINATION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

[ LEFT SITTING:I

Combinat'ons by Workmen.

(From the Solicitors' Journal.)

The law with respect to combinations by work-
men stands at present in a position so uncertain and
anomalous that we are justified in again c dling
attention to it with particular reference to the case
of " Skinner v. Kith" recently decided in the
Queen's Bench, and reported in the current num-
ber of the lVeekly Reporter. That case has been
rather erroneously viewed as an original authority
deciding that an intimation of an intention to strike
with the view of influencing the master was a threat
within the statute 6 Geo. IV. c. 129, s. 3. The.
Court indeed held this, but as long ago as the case
of " Walsby v. Anley," 9 W. R. 271, it had been
held that a threat made by a workman, in conjunc-
with others, that they would all cease work imme-
diately unless the master discharged certain
other workmen who were in his employ
under particular terms, was a threat of car-
rying out an unlawful combination, and was,
therefore, a threat within the Gth Geo. IV
c. 129, s. 3, which makes it unlawful by threats to.
endeavour to force a master to limit the description
of his workmen. The next case, " O'Neil v. Long-
man," 11 W. R. 947, puts the matter in a still
plainer light as to its being sufficient to bring the
case within the statute if there be a threat to carry
out some unlawful purpose, not of necessity a, threat
of violence. It is not our intention to go into the
question whether on the words of the statute this
interpretation was right. The matter having been
decided by the Court of Queen's Bench, arid there,
being no appeal, we must take the law to be as
laid down in the first-mentioned- case, and
content ourselves with showing what are
the effects it. It should be observed that in these
cases the only point was threat or no threat within
the meaning of the statute, but in the next
case that arose, " Shelbourne v. Oliver," it be-
came incidentally a matter of interest whether a
combination to strike against a particular workman,
which according to the first case was a threat
came within the latter part of the section as an
attempt to limit the description of the workmen em-
ployed by the master. The facts there were briefly
that the workmen of the respondent had all struck,
with the exception of one man of the name of James.
They agreed to return, and did so, but on finding
James there they again gave over work. The leader
of a deputation to the master told him that James
should not work, and that unless he was discharged
the other men should not be allowed to work. On
the authority of " Walsby v. Anley" the conviction
was sustained, though in that case the question of
description does not appear to have been raised.
" Shelbourne v. Oliver" cannot, in fact, be distin-
guished from " Skinner v. Kitch," which may there-
fore be taken as re-affirming the principle that the
term " description of workman" may be read
apart from the other words of the section, and
taken to mean not a description derived from
the distinctive part of the trade which' the
particular workman carries on, but in a much wider
sense a personal description—as, for instance, whe-
ther he belongs, or does not belong, to a particular
society ; whether he is English, Scotch, or Belgian ;
whether he has red hair or the like. The law on
the subject is thus reduced to this singular con-
dition :—A workman may decline to work for an
employer on the ground that one of his fellow-
workmen is of a " description" offensive to him ;
and he may of course inform his master to that ef-
fect. In other words, one workman may strike on
these grounds, the question of his success in the
strike not entering into the discussion, but depend.
ing on other considerations, such as the compara-
tive value to the employer of the workman
striking and the one struck against. It is clear
that what one may do any number may do inde-
pendently; but whether a combination is legal
or illegal is a point about which it is im-
possible, on the conflicting decisions, to give• a de-
cisive opinion. This, however, is perfectly clear,
on the authorities, that whether workmen may or
may not combine to do what one may do with im-
punity, at least they 'must be very careful how they
inform the master of their combination and its ob-
jects. A check is thus put on any attempt to settle
a dispute on such a subject. Directly those who
are not, and indeed practically cannot be, punished
for combining and striking, open their mouths to
explain the grievance that has induced them to take
the step, they may at once become liable to all the
consequences of threatening. There is, it is
true, a limitation established by the case
of " Wood v. Bouron," 15 W. R: 58. In
that case men struck in :accordance -with a
resolution of a society to which they belonged,
and in answer to the employer the resolution was
communicated to him. It was held that, in the
absence of any evidence to show that the letter
communicating the resolution, though appirently
an explanation, was in fact meant as a threat, a con-
viction could not be sustained. In other words, a
subtle distinction must be taken between an expla-
nation of the reasons that have influenced the men
in answer to inquiries from the master and a spon-
taneous communication to him of these very same
reasons ; or else the cases must mean that there
is some difference between explaining reasons
for doing a future and having done a past
act. No other meaning, we venture to say,
can be attached to these cases, unless they are
to be taken as in direct conflict., and whichever
view is taken, it is obvious that great hindrances
are thrown in the way of explanation, which is the
first step to settlement of differences. It is also
evident that great responsibility is thrown on magi-
strates in determining the nice question of the dif-
ference between an explanation of the motive to
strike, accompanied by a statement that a strike
will be carried out; and the like explanation with
a threat that the strike will be carried out. We can
only, in conclusion, recommend a perusal of these
cases to the members of the. Commission now sitting,
and express a hope that, by the united wisdom of
Parliament, some remedy may be found fora state
of things so uncertain, and, at the same time, so
prejudicial to the interests of working men find
i masters alike.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

(By Electric Telegraph.)
GRAVESEND, Friday Morning.

, Arrived, June 13.—Koyoshk, from Jamaica ; Constantia,
from Cuba; Venus, from New York; Nora, steamer, from
Harlingen.
Arrived, June 14—Yorkshire, from Melbourne; Bolde-
raa, steamer, from St. Petersburg ; Panther, steamer, from
Boulogne; Fusilier, steamer, from Dunkirk; James, from
Ghent ; Fancy, from Dort ; Fetia Jacobina, from Skeve ;
Russell, steamer, from Dunkirk.
Sailed, June 13.—Congress, for Aden ; Celestial, for
Nickeril ; North Star, steamer, for Christiania; Fulton,
Martlet, and Sir R. Peel, steamers, all for Dunkirk.
DEAL, Friday Morning.
Passed. June 13.—Jane Brown of Shields, from Bahia,
for London.
Passed, Juno 11.—Prince of Wales, for Montevideo ;
Mangerton, for Barbadoes ; Southern Cross, for Hongkong ;
Congress, for Adon ; Evadnt., for Antigua ; Flor de Ovau,
for Oporto ; Leon Raymondo, for Madeira ; Rodesdale, for
Buenos Ayres ; Peaiusular, screw steamer, for Gibraltar ;
all from London ; Ajax, from Shields, for Calcutta.
Passed, in tow—Southampton, ship, from New York,
for London.
Sailed—Coringa, for Madras ; • Queen of Sheba, for
Tobago.

BAYLIS V. BAYLIS, TAVAN, AND COOPER.--In
the Court of Divorce yesterday, the J udge- Ordinary,
in intimating that he should take further time to
consider his judgment in this case, observed that as
the law would not allow of the examination of the
respondent, and it would be unfair to her to take
from the petitioner alone the history of the married
life, he. should not require Mr. Baylis to be placed
in the" witness-box.
•;;T he quotation of gold at Paris Is about at par, and
the short exchange on London i5:25.11 per £1 sterling. On
towering, these rates with the English Mint price of
Lie. NO. per ounce (or Standard gold, it appears that gold is
about the nun pa° in Putts and London.

AUSTRALIA.

DARTMOUTH, June 13.

The ship Holmesdale, Captain Tickle, from
Melbourne, 90 days out, has passed up Channel
Some of her passengers landed here.
The amount of gold on board is not reported.

INDIA, CHINA,•AND AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
The Syria arrived at 9.45 a.m. to-day. The
mails left for London at 11.30 a.m.
(Letters due in London Friday evening.)

THE WEST INDIA AND PACIFIC MAILS.
SOUTHAMPTON, June 13.

The Royal Mail steamship AtrAtO has arrived
here with the above mails, 175 passengers,
81G,220 in specie, and 910 packages of e.►rgo,
chiefly bark and cocoa.

She left Peer Island on the 31st of May, and
cxprienced fine weather througholt the passage.
The news from Chili is unimportant.

The Peru Congress . was engaged in discus-Sing
the financial position of the country, and a loan
was considered probable. The reports from Hon-
duras are unsatisfactory. The Indians continue
their depredations upon the settlers, capturing their
cattle and small stock.

A considerable quantity of rain has fallen on the
coast and some parts of the interior of Central
America, doing considerable damage to the cochineal
crop.

Jamaica was still suffering for want of rain. The
sugar crops were nearly ended. The coffee crop
promises good returns.
At Valparaiso the markets were active, and the
transactions large. Bar copper $l5 12i cents per
quintal.

Freights to Liverpool and Swansea, 15s.
Exchange on London, 90 days, 46d.

INIELLIGENCR--in

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

A portion of the following appeared in our impression
of yesterday :

THE SLADE BARONETCY CASE.

This morning the Barons of the Court of Ex-
chequer gave judgment in the case of " Sir Marcus
John Slade, Bart., v. Alfred Frederick Adolphus
Slade, who appeared as Sir Alfred Fredk. Adolphus
Slade, Bart."
The epitomised narrative of facts shows that the
late General Sir John Slade in 1832 settled certain
estates on his sons successively for life, with re-
mainder to their issue in tail male. The elder sons,
Henry and Charles, died without issue, and the third
son, Frederick William, succeeded under the limi-
tations of settlement to the estates and title. In
1833 Frederick William Slade was married at St.
George's, Hanover-square, to Maria Barbara, the
daughter of Mr. Charles Brown Mostyn, of Kidring-
ton, and had by her several children, of whom
Alfred, the present defendant, is the eldest of the
sons. In 1863 Sir Frederick Wm. Slade died, and
his son Alfred entered into possession of the family
estates, and assumed the title of Sir Alfred Slade,
Bart. General Marcus Slade, the twin brother of
the late Sir Frederick, disputed Sir Alfred's right to
both the title ani the property, and commenced an
action of ejectment to recover possession of the
manor of North Petherton, in the County of Somer-
set, and certain other lands entailed in the Slade
family, and it was agreed that the action should
come before the Court in the shape of aspecial case.

According to the case of the plaintiff, the mar-
riage between Sir Frederick Slade and his wife was
void, because the lady had previously contracted
marriage at Milan, in 1825, with one Baron von
Korber, who survived until the year 1853, and it
was maintained that that was a valid marriage ac-
cording to the Austrian law, and consequently that,
as Baron von Korber was alive at the time when his
wife married Sir Frederick Sade, the second mar-
riage was bigamous and void, and the issue of it,
including the defendant was illegitimate. On the
part of the defendant it was alleged that Lady Slade's
marriage at Milan was void by Austrian law, and
that she was consequently free to marry again, as
she did afterwards iu 1633.

Baron Piggott, in delivering his judgment in
favour of the plaintiffs, stated that he had care-
fully weighed all the evidenc3, which had been ably
laid before them, and his conclusion was that the
first marriage of Lady Slade was perfectly legal,
and that the second one was consequently not so.
His lordship then very minutely weighed all the
points in the case, giving elaborate arguments as to
the reason for the decision lie had arrived at.
Baron Bramwell, who was of the same opinion,
said that they were called on one side to decide
whether the second marriage was legitimate, and
on the other whether the first marriage was not
legitimate. With regard to the first marriage, there
was everything about it that would stamp it as
legal. Look at the ceremony itself. The bride
and bridegroom consented, the bride's mother as-
sisting and consenting. There were two priests,
one belOtaging to the Artillery, to which
Korber belonged. They were quite content ;
and there was also a lawyer there, who drew
up a contract. When, therefore, they quarrelled,
and separated, what ground was there for saying
,that the marriage was not legal, but void? Surely
no one would say that a French girl, who married
with her father's consent while under Age, an
Englishman could be put on one side on the
ground that the marriage was void. The only
argument adduced that required sifting into was
the point concerning the banns, and on this they
appeared uncertain, but it, even admitting the
irregularity, wont for nothing. The learned Baron
then went into a long argument as
giving his toi then validy
of the marriage, and ended by g
judg-
ment in favour of the plaintiff.
Baron Martin, in delivering his judgment, said
that a great deal of doubt appeared to have been
thrown on the testimony of Lady Slade (he called
her so for the sake of distinction), hut, he thought
that it was clearly corroborated by other evidence of
a collateral character. It had been stated that she was
a perjured woman. If such an expression had been
addressed to a jury one would know how to deal
with it. His lordship then at great length reviewed
the whole of the evidence, and gave his reasons for
the decision which he had come to in favour of the
defendant.
The Lord Chief Baron, in delivering his judg-
ment, said that he agreed with his brother Martin,
and had come to the conclusion, on reviewing all
the facts relative to the marriage between Von
Korber and Lady Slade, that it was an illegal one.
His judgment, therefore, would be for the defen-
dant.

On the withdrawal of the judgment of Baron
Piggott, as junior baron, the majority of the judges
gave judgment for the defendant.

Bank of England Returns.—Last Evening.

An Account, pursuant to t
cap. 32, for the week ending

he Act 7th and Bth Victoria.
Wednesday, Jane 12, 1867.

ISSUE DE

'AILTMENT.

Notes issued ....Z35,181,655

Governmt. Debt.Xll,ols,loo
Other Securities 3,984,900
Gold Coin and
Bullion
Silver Bullion

£35,181,655
BANKING n:

.£35,181,655.

PEpART MENT.
Governmt. Seen-
rities(including
Dead Weight
Annuity) .... £12,886,314
Other Securities.. 18,630,101
Notes ............... 12,413,925
Gold and Silver
Coin .......... -1,148,745

Proprietors' Capi-
tal £14,553,000
Rest
Public Deposits
(including Ex-
chequer, Sav-
ings' Banks,
Commissioners
of National
Debt, and Div
Accounts) '9,804,049
Other Deposits 17,172,723
Seven Day and
other bills 452,172

£45,990,085

£45,990,085

MURDERS IN THE SANDWICH ISLANDS. —The
Board of Trade has received despatches from the Governor
of New-South Wales, giving information of the murder of
the captain and crew of the brig Curlew, of Sydney, by
the natives of the Hinchinbroko Islands; also the murder
of throe white men of the Mary Jane, either by-the native
crew or by those from the. island. The Curlew was burnt
•by the natives. Captain Madden, pf the Challenge, was
despitched in search of the Mary Jatie,.which.-iiad been
captured by the crew, and succeeded in tracing her into
Ham* harbour, where he boarilci and eeizedher: