Star.
London, England, 1825-12-23 00:00:00

COMBINATIONS IN SCOTLAND.

Monday night, certain journeymen shoemakers em
ployed by Messrs. Paterson, who have an extensive
warehouse in Glasgow, by a preconcerted agreement,
met in a changhouse, when they resolved to work no
longer for their employers, unless they gave them a
specified advance in their wages. We understand that
the journeymen wanted Is. additional on each pair of
Wellington boots, although three months have not
elapsed since they demanded and actually obtained an
ittcrease to this amount. Not satisfied, however, on
this last occasion with merely sta. ing their claims, these
foolish persons have even resorted to force, and at.
tempted by measures of intimidation to prevent others
from receiving Messrs. Patterson's employment. Fri-
day forenoon, one of them was detected in the. fact
(having interrupted a boy who was leaving the pre-
mists, and told him that the shoemakers had struck),
and carried to the Police Office. The Sitting Ma-
gistrate recommended a prosecution at the instance of
the Fiscal—and a petition, at Mr. &swan's instance,
was presented to the Justices accord ugly.
On the trial, the prisoner emitted a declaration, in
which he admitted that he was a Member of the Com-
bined Society ofJourneymen Shoemakers. The object
of this society was to support the members when they
hid struck for a rise of wages. The strike against
Messrs. Paterson came under the consideration ot the
Society, and it w..s agreed to set a wntch on the shop,
ro ascertain who did their work. On Thursday night,
Daniel Sutherland, clerk of the Society, informed him
that he was appointed to watch the next day till two
o'clock. He began to watch accordingly, and continued
till he was apprehended by Mr. Paterson, when threat-
ening the boy.
The tech related above were clearly proved. When
the boy had given his evidence, he was told to be under
no alarm, for he would be protected.
Mr. Vary, the Justice ot Peace Clerk, said, that all
the fellows who were found watching, for the purpose
of intimidation, should be apprehended and tried.
The sentence was then read ever to the prisoner, con-
demning him to three months' solitary confinement, end
hard labour, in Bridewell.—Glasgote Courier.
The colliers' combination continues so strong in Fife,
that a number of labourers belonging to Cupar, Fife,
who were engaged to work in some coal-pits, were
actually afraid to begin, and returned to Cupar, Fife.
Another of the foolish combinations/in this part of the
country has been broken up, namely, that of the jour-
neymen printers. This was one ot the boldest of the
associations, and in the face of the law did not hesitate
to restrict the number of apprentices which any master
was to take. Having sent anonymous letters to inti-
midate apprentices, the leaders were about to be made
to answer for the offence before the Justices, when they
assembled the members of the combination, wbo decided
by 16 to nine votes, that the confederacy should be
broken up.— Glasgow Chronicle.

Private accounts from Sak, near Singapore, state
that an expedition was fitting out there against the
Chief of Bookit Batoo, who had refused submissi.in to
the Rajah of Siak.
ORIGIN OF THE TERM PANIC.—It sometimes hip-
pened with the ancient Greeks, well disciplined, and
commonly brave as their armies are, that a body of
troops, without any attack being made or threatened,
would take upon them to disperse and fly fur their
lives, leaving their camps and baggage, throwing away
their arms, running over hill and dale for days and
nights together till their legs and their, fright were
wolfs out together. As they were philosophers enough
to know that there could be no act without a motive,
they excused themselves on these occasions by saying,
that the god ran, a shaggy anJ venerable person, with
goal's feet, had appeared to them, and that it con-
sequently became them, as pious persons, to do their
utmost to break their necks in a fright. Hence the
phrase Panic terror. Wheiher the god Pan has ap-
peared in the City, of London during the last fortnight
we do not know, but it would be extremely difficult
for many wt o were affected by terror to find a better
l cause: they ought to be obliged to us for fornishm3
them with this.

LAW REPORT.
COURT OP CHANCERY, Dec. st.
COMMISsIoW OF ilrlEW.—rowst.L C.MoUCITAt•
The lilommvon•Guranat. was heard in reply to the argument of
the three former days.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that from all he could
understand-, the proceedings in the Common Bea*
amounted to a mere waste of expense. • Why did not
the parties go to issue upon a clearer point ? A Jury
might .very well determine, for example, upon the
competency or incompetency of the testator to make
a will, but he could not coeceive upon what state of
facts they found him competent to making a portion'
of a will, and incompetent to make another portion of
the same will : yet such was the effect of the finding.
Dr. ADAMS is to be heard in reply.
DEC. 22.—JODOMENT.
Dr. Armies was occupied in arguing this cause this day until
twelve o'clock.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then minutely went over the
whole of the evidence in the case. His L•nd•hip put
out of the question the verdicts given on the is,tres
tried in e Court of Common Pleas, and concluded by
saying, " If I were called on this moment to give my
judgment, I should say to his Majesty, this Commission
ought not to be granted. I have, however, laid it
down as an invariable rule, never to give any final
opinion until I have reconsidered what I ought to do;
and 2i I shall have to come down to give some ju. Ig-
ments before the Court will m• et after the holydays for
busine,s, I shall look at the papers, and the first jndg
ment I shall give out will be this, if I find occa►ion to
aim my opinion." •

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 2iL
CRIM. CON4-.—PARKES V. CRESWICK•
Mr. RYAN opened the pleading, the declaration alleged that the
defendant had criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The
defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL—The plaintiff is a Gentle-
man, possessing some proper, y, and was merly a
travtller in a mercantile house. The defendant is a

Gentlem•in of landed prnperty and a Magistrate of the I,
county of Gloucester. The wife of the plaintiff was a
Lady of considerable personal attractions, and the
daughter of an attorney at Bristol. Some time after
the marriage Mrs. Parkes wished her husband to estab•
lish himself in business at Bristol, amongst her friends
and relations. He did so ; but subsequently wished to
retire from that business, and to return to London, but

having no residence there, he was compelled to leave
his wife and two children at Bristol, under the care of
her father. About this time the mother of the plaintiff's
wife died, and the defendant being intimate with the
family of the plaintiff's father, he proposed that-the
plaintiff's wife should pay a visit to the defendant at
his residence at Hannan Hall, in Gloucestershire, al-
leging that she would be a companion for a daughter
of his, who was just about returning from school. She
went accordingly, no suspicion being entertained as to
the defendant's motives, and here the defendant com-
pleted the ruin of Mrs. Parkes, and destroyed the
happiness of the plaintiff. D wing this period no inter.
course had taken place between the plaintiff and his
wife ; but upon her return to her father's residence,
after her visit to the defendant, she discovered herself
to be pregnant, and she immediately told the circum-
stance to the defendant, request.ng that he would pro-
vide some place where her accouchemmt might take
place in concealMent. The defendant •made arrange.
ments accordingly, and they both eloped toAttl er, no
one knowing whither they had gone. From this time
the parties continued to live together in secrecy, and no
trace of them could be discovered. This lasted about
two years, and the result of this • intercour.e was the
birth of two children. At length the defendant go
tired of this life of obscurity; and also of his companion,
and returned to his residence, ',There he was repeatedly
questioned as to his knowledge of Mrs. Pal kes, but he
had always denied knowing anything about
Upon her father's friend going to seek her, he found her
i habiting a humble eettag;e, maintaining herself and
her children by her own industry, in doing needle-work
given her by the ladies in the neighbourhood. She
gave him up a quantity of letters that• the defendant
had written to her, but those letters, in a subsequent
communication between the plaintiff and the defend tnt,
' were given up to him; one or two had been retained,
from which the general tenour of them might beinferred.
The Learned Gentleman here detailed the reasons why
the plaintiff and his wife did not cohabit together at the
time the seduction took place, there certainly was a
coolness between them, in consequence of the wife re-
fusing to come to London, and the plaintiff had certainly
spoken in an authoritative tone, on the subject, saying
that lie might as well be without a wife at alt. These
were the facts—and subsequently the plaintiff, having
been prosperous in life, and being now a man of fortune,
had thought it to be his duty, by this action, to expose
the character of the defendant.
Mr. Lutcham, the brother of the plaintiff, proved the marillage,
which took place in Ism
Cross-examined.—The business which the plaintiff
carried on at Bristol was that of a plumber and glazier.
The business was carried on for some months. The
plaintiff was in London seven or eight years, during
which time witness's father supported the wife and her
two children. Witness did not disapprove of her mar.
rile. He thought they lived very unhappily. together.
Witness may have said that the plaintiff behaved likes
scoundrel to his wife. Had heard h=r say that she
would never go to London to live with him. His father
became embarrassed in his circumstances. Mrs. Parkes
went to a Mrs. Piakeeing's and another place; she went
as. companion. When witness's father died, the chil-
dren were sent to witness to take care of, and witness
consequently wrote to the plaintiff on the subject, and
receiving no answer, he applied to the parish, and one
of the children was sent up to London to the plaintiff.
Knew that the defendant *AS some time ago in great
embarrassments, but did not know that he continued
so now. • • •

Thomas S lkwich lives at Exeter; recollects the de-
fendant coming to that place in 1820, and brought with
him a Lady. He introduced ber as his wife. They
passed by the name of Mr. and Mrs. Humphries. He
had a cottage at Exmouth, and there he s..w the Lady
called Mrs. Humphries. Witness received his hums
and parcels. The Lady had a child whilst at Exmuui h.
The child was nursed by a woman of the name ot-Fore.
The defendant left the cottage in March, 'lB2l. Wit-
ness • procured a • chaise for him, and Mr. and Mrs.
Humphries went together with their boxes. •
&witness named Fry wu calledto prove the manner in which
he obtained the defendant's letters from Mrs. Parkes, and the
manlier in which he gave them up to the defendant.'
. Thomas Parkes, the brother of the plaietiff, was called to prove.
that melons to the plaintiff leaving ileistol,_the' plaintiff end his'
wife lived on good terms.
Thomas Joseph Severn spoke to the terms tspoo which the plain-
tiff and his wife lived whil..t they were residing in London.
/ A Mr. and Mrs. Barrow spoke to the sane effect.