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

the meaning of the statute, but in the next
case that arose, " Shelbourne v. Oiver," 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. Ditch," 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 confficting 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 inly 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 1)., punished
for combining and striking, opn their mouths to
explain the grievance that has induce 4 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 appArently
an explanation, was iu fact meant as a threat, a con-
viction could not bo sustained. In other wor3s, a
subtle diitinction 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 exphining 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 for a state
of things so uncertain, and, at the same time, so
prejudicial to the interests of working men and
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, June 14.—Prince of Wales, for Montevideo ;
Mangerton, for Barbadoes ; Southern Cross, for Hongkong;
Congress, for Aden ; Evadne, for Antigua ; Plor de Ovan,
for Oporto ; Leon Raymond°, for Madeira ; Redesdale, for
Buenos Ayres ; Poainsular, screw steamer, for Gibraltar ;
all from London ; Ajax, fTom Shields, for Calcutta.
Passed, in tow—Southampton, ship, from New York,
for London.

Sailod—Coringa, for Madras ; Queen of Sheba, for
Tobago.

BAYLIS V. BAYLIS, TAVAN, AND COOPER.—In
the Court of Divorce yesterday, theJ udge-Ordivary,
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.

Under the heading " The Mormons and the
Universal Exhibition," the Libertd has a long account of
two Mormon representatives who have just arrived at
Paris, and with whom the writer has visited the building.
One of the envoys is the second son of Brigham Young ;
the other is a man named Richards, who, before leaving
for Europe, was President of the Emigration Committee.
Brigham Young, junior, though not yet thirty, Las two
wives and a large family, while his companion has four
Wives and 22 children. Neither of the representatives can
speak a word of French, but our Paris contemporary ap-
pears neverthless to have extracted from them 4 good deal
of information. . .