The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-11-19 00:00:00

NORTHERN TIMES.---LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY.

Commons, shall settle a great question affecting the vital
interests of the people for twenty years. (Hear, hear.)
Twenty years I no, not for twenty) months, if public
opinion demands its revival. (Cheers.) I can only
explain this language on the part of such a man as Mr.
Laing, by the recollection on my own part, and by
reminding you that Mr. Laing is a Scotchman, and was
writing a letter to Scotchmen; and, gentlemen, I am very
sorry to say that I can well understand any Scotchman,
regarding with something like contempt the state of public
education in England, where we are struggling, and
struggling in vain, to obtain a system of national educe.•
tion, similar in its principles to that which Scotland has
enjoyed to the great advantage of her national character
for the last two hundred years. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
In the very able speech with which Lord John Russell
introduced his resolutions last March, I remember he
stated that, when he was residing in Scotland some
two or three years before, he asked the minister
of his parish how many children were in the parish
who had not received any education. " Why, my lord,"
said the minister, " there is not a child in the parish of
seven years old who cannot read well." Now is there any
one parish in England in which we can say that ? (Hear,
hear.) There may be—l will not say there is not—but I
may say, without hesitation, in the face of this great
assembly, that I very strongly doubt it. (Hear, hear.)
But, gentlemen, although I refuse to admit, although
altogether refuse to admit that that division has settled
the question, or that it can bo held to have settled
even for a time this Great and most important question;
at the same time, I fiamkly admit, I frankly avow, and
I think it would be disingenous to deny it, that the lan-
guage and the views to which I have adverted were held
not only by men of high station, but by men, beyond all
doubt, of great ability, of high character, and of the most
honourable motives. (Hear, hear.) And, therefore, I
say that when, in discussing before the public of this
great kingdom questions of such Magnitude and impor-
tance, any man finds that his views are not only contra-
vened, but are contravened by persons whose opinions
are entitled to gttat weight and great authority, it does
undoubtedly become him gravely to reconsider the
conclusions at which he has arrired. And I beg
to say upon my own part that I have done this. I
have seriously reconsidered the whole of the ques-
tion. I have seriously considered the arguments put
forth in the great debate of last session. To the best of
my humble judgment, after considering the arguments
advanced, both in speeches and in writings, I can arrive
only at the conclusion, that the views put forth in those
speeches and in those writings, are erroneonq, mistaken,
and unsound. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The question
then, now before the country, is simply on which side the
truth lies. The question must be decided by the trut h•
The question is, whether for the interests of the people of
England we do stand in need of extended means of edu-
cation, or whether we do not. Now, I must remark
that, happily the language held in the speeches and
writings is perfectly plain. There is no ambiguity—there
is no possibility of mistake. What does Sir James
Graham tsay in his speech—a very able speech. indeed,
which produced a great impression upon the House of
Commons ? He says :—" My first objection to the
proposal is, that it is unnecessary," Now, gentlemen, you
will here see that he is not entering into the merits of
Lord John Russell's proposal—he is not entering into the
question of whether that plan is a good or bad plan.
lie says broadly the whole thing is unnecessary,
do not touch it. " I contend in the strongest
maner," continues Sir James Graham, " that there is no
country in Europe in which the progress of education
during the last twenty-five years has been so rapid and so
satisfactory as it has been in England." There, then,
we have the broad issue fairly raised. What does Mr.
Baines, of Leeds, another very high authority, say ? He
says—" Objection, six. The measure is perfectly
unnecessary. We possess official evidence of the great
fact of the rapid and steady progress of education during
the whole of the present century." Mr. Unwin does not
lay it down in terms quite so dogmatic ; but Mr. Unwin,
in common with many other men of ability who spoke in
debate, or have written upon the subject, holds in
substance the same opinions. Well, gentlemen, these
speakers and these writers of course felt that whatever
their talents, whatever their ability, whatever their
position, nothing could justify such language as this in the
face of the facts which have been repeatedly submitted to
the country, unless their views were supported by some-
thing like proof. Consequently they have given us their
proof, and what is it ? I would not for a moment
exaggerate what they have said, but after studying their
speeches and writings I find that they rely upon one
single fact—that by the census of 1851 it appears
that the proportion of persons who were going to
school had risen up to one in 81. That is the single fact.
It was much lower at the last estimate which was taken
—I think nearly twenty years ago. There has been un-
doubtedly a great increase in the number ; and upon
that single fact they mainly rely. Now, let me ask you
what it is they omit?—and I believe I am right ; I am
speaking now of the voluminous speeches, and extensive
writings, and I believe I am right when I say that if you
search those speeches and those pamphlets from end to
end, you will find nowhere any reference whatever to the
quality of the schools to which the people go. (Hear.)
Now, in the first place. I say that the number—namely,
their boasted one in Bi—is inferior to other countries, is
insufficient, and is unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) But I
deny altogether that this is solely, or even mainly, a ques-
tion of numbers. I say the numbers become compara-
tively immaterial, if the schools to which the numbers go
are not worth having. (Hear, hear.) Now. I challenge
that issue—l do it broadly, I do it fairly. If I tun wrong,
let me be convinced ; but let me be convinced by legiti-
mate and good evidence—and I say the question is only
evaded by those who urge that our condition is
satisfactory, because we have a certain number
of persons going to school. The question I ask
is this—from the Tweed to the Land's End, are the
schools of England what they ought to be? Where they
are good—and no doubt there are many very
.good—have
we any security whatever for their permanent continuance
as good schools ? And what is the prospect, if the present
system continue, of their progressive improvement ? But
some of the gentlemen who put forward this language have
no': been contented with saying that all the plans we
proposed are very bad, but some of them have gone a step
further, and proposed plans of their own. Mr. Unwin
has done so ; and I may remark that I know not, as a
stranger, whom I may be addressing here—l may be
addressing friends of Mr. Baines, or friends of Mr. Unwin
—at all events, I may be addressing those who sympathise
with their views—and if so, I hope it will be hardly con-
sidered necessary that I should disclaim anything like
personal disrespect for these gentlemen. (Hear, hear.)
They are gentlemen of high and of just reputation. Mr.
Baines is a name known in every corner of this country.
While I defend the cause which, I believe that of truth,
and while speaking, as I am bound to do, with frankness
and sincerity on the subject, I challenge their views,
and dissent from their conclusions. I respect most
sincerely their abilities, and the sincerity of purpose
which I know they possess. (Hear, hear.) Sir John
Pakington then read an extract from Mr. Unwin's pam-
phlet, in which the writer maintained that national• educa-
tion ought to be the work of the people themselves, since
the training of children is the essential duty of parents,
and that the true object of education would be defeated
if on the one hand parties were compelled to educate
their offspring, or on the other hand could succeed in
compelling their fellow-citizens to educate them. The
lecturer asked who had ever deemed that it was the duty
of parents to educate their children ? Did Mr. Unwin
think that questions of that magnitude,
.and, unhappily,
of that complication, were to be settled by truisms like
that? But the tables published in the reports of the
committee of the council on education would show that,
under even the present system, this principle was not
carried out to the degree of leaving to each individual the
charge of paying for the education of his children. Of
the children in schools visited by her Majesty's inspectors
about 75 per cent paid no more than 2d per week for their
education (35 per cent paying Id, and 40 per cent 2d),
the remaining 25 per cent paid 3d,. 4d, or perhaps more.
But education in that country cost an average of
at least 5d or 6d per week. Therefore, although
it was the abstract duty of the working classes to educate
their children, as well as of all other classes; this demon-
strated that they were not called on to pay more than one-
sixth, or at most one-third, of the cost of their children's
education. Mr. Baines's argument, that to establish such
systems of education, would take away the merit and
honour of spontaneous chat-lay, and would be indeed a
violation of liberty, Sir John Pakington contended would
equally apply to the establishment of workhouses, or of
courts of law and prison systems. He cited the opinions
of several school inspectors, to prove that only 50 per cent
of the schools they inspected, were in a satisfactory con-
dition. To prove the generally defective state of education
in the towns and country parts of England, he quoted the
opinions of Dr. McKerrow, of Mr. Tufnel, inspector of the
London district, the Dean of Hereford, Rev. Mr. Vaughan,
of Bath, Rev. Mr. Clay, of Preston (to whom, in passing,
he paid a high tribute), Rev. P. O'Leary, Dr. Guthrie, of
Edinburgh, and several other authorities. In the course
of his remarks, he stated that two or three days ago he
had received a letter from Chatham asking him to subscribe
to get up a school, as there were no schools there. He had
no hesitation in saying that he sent an indignant refusal.
He thought it monstrous that in a town like Chatham,
the seat of a garrison, where Government had an arsenal
and enormous establishments, they could not establish a
school without going begging to Worcestershire country
gentleman. (Hear, hear.) It was perfectly monstrous,
and it was time to put an end to such a system as that.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Sir John Pakington paid a high
tribute to the exertions of the clergy of all denominations
in establishing schools, declaring that for one school
founded by a landed proprietor 50 was established by
clergymen. He urged that the argument against the
expense of a national school was contemptuously dis-
proved by the increase in the prosperity and diminution
of the taxes of the country. In 1815, the income tax was
10 per cent ; in 1855, only 6a. The amount raised in 1815
was £13,640,000, and in 1855, £1:.3,718,000. The declared
rates £51,898,000.
; in 1855, with
value of the exports of
The i
poorf9oEonglandnlBls-
In 1855, it was
all that vast increase of wealth, was less by £200,000 than
in 1815. He contrasted the manner in which the legislature
of the United States, and of our colony of Upper Canada,
viewed this question. He expressed a hope that before long
they would have a responsible Minister of Education in the
House of Commons, to answer for the state of public
instruction. Referring to what was called the religious diffi-
culty, he contended that that difficulty was not insuperable.
Every child should be properly instructed in the first and
greatest branch of knowledge, but they must adhere most
strictly and rigidly to the principle of perfect toleration, so
that no violence should be done to the religious belief of
any denomination of Christians, (Applause.) Provided
these two conditions were strictly and securely guarded, he
confessed that ho was himself disposed to adopt any
system which would be generally acceptable, and likely to
procure general public support. He reminded the meeting
how many other great questions—Catholic Emancipation,

Parliamentary Reform, Pree Trade, and others, presented
great difficulties, but yet were settled ; and in like
manner, he declared, would this great question, too,
be settled. To secure its adoption, however, he urged
that it was imperatively necessary a Government
should take it up, and expressed his conviction that
the minister who did so would deserve the gratitude
of the natbn, an.l that the goof sense of the Parliament
would secure his 611CCe4F. Sir John Pakington then, with
an eloquent perora,ion, closed a lecture which occupied two
hours in delivery, and resumed his seat amid loud applause.
A vote of thanks to the rifeit hon. lecturer, closed the
proceedings siortly after ten o'clock.
To-day, Sir John Pakington will visit some of the prin•
&pal public educational institutions of Manchester. He is
expected to be present at a ball in the Free-Trade Hall, at
night.
We understand that tha directors of the J therm= have
been enabled to arrange for a series of lectures, at intervals,
from some of the most eminent men in the country. Among
those who are spoken of as to deliver lectures, at early
periods, are—Lord Stanley, Mr. W. M. Thackeray, Judge
llaliburton (Sam Slick), and Sir Robert Peel.

ANOTHER FRAUD DISCOVERED OF SEVERAL
THOUSANDS OF POUNDS.

During the past week an extensive fraud has been dis-
covered in the establishment of Messrs. Bunnett and
Corpe, the eminent engineers of New Cross-road, Dept-
ford, committed by John William Stuart, their foreman
and managing man. It appears that for the last eighteen
years Stuart has enjoyed the full confidence of his
employers, but owing to some suspicion having been
excited in the mind of Mr. Stout, the head clerk of the
firm, a rigid scrutiny of accounts took place, when some
inefficient rendering appearing in the •time" account,
Stuart was sent for, who said there was a mistake, which
he would immediately rectify with the men. He had no
communication with either of the men, but shortly after-
wards returned, saying he had made it all right, and
altered the book. This led to a further search, which
resulted in the discovery of fraud to the amount of several
thousands of pounds, and the absconding of Stuart. With
respect to the method by which Stuart had carried on his
fraul for so long a period, it appears that he had made
false and ficticious time entries, paying the men from a
private list, with stoppages for lost time, but himself
charging the full amount. He had also been receiving
from ss. to 10s. a week for each engineer's wages more
than he had paid over to them, and 2s. a week each in
like manner for the labourers. As far as has at present
been ascertained this system has been carried o n between
twelve and thirteen years, during which period his weekly
salary of X. 3 10s. must have amounted to £lO, there b -ing
employed upon the premises between two and three
hundred men. Stuart had also been in the habit of
employing the men and material of the firm in the con-
struction of lathes, &c., and disposing of them for his own
individual benefit. The most heartless portion of the
fraud, however, is the receipt by Stuart of a sovereign
from Mr. Bunnet for an injured carman, which was never
paid over. A search warrant having been obtained, the
police proceeded to Stuart's residence, 4, Arnersham-road,
New-cross, and brought. away half a cart load of property
(recognised by Mr. Bunnett as belonging to him), consist-
ing of house chandeliers, gas lamps, corrugated iron
ornamental articles (including two aquaria, well stocked
with fish), manufactured from the material of his
employers, with which the house was decorated. Messrs.
Bunnett and Corps cannot tell the precise amount of the
defalcations, but they at present reach several thousand
pounds.

EXTRAORDINARY SCENE AT ST. PAUL'S,
KNIGHTSBRIDGE.

On Sunday morning, during the performance of Divine
service at this now notorious church, the fog having
rendered the uie of lights necessary, the candles at the
desks of the clergy and choir were lighted. Shortly after
the commencement of the Litany, Mr. Westerton, one of
the churchwardens, directed the beadle to light the gas-
burners in the church, so that no difficulty might be felt
by Mr. Liddell and his curates when they had to perform
that part of the Communion service which precede the
sermon. While this was being done, and the prayers
following the Litany were being monotoned, Mr. Liddell,
although ostensibly engaged at his devotions and on his
knees in the chancel, ordered the beadle to light the great
candles on the altar. It will be remembered that these
candles form a portion of the furniture attached to the
ceremonial at this church, for which the long-delayed
iudgment of Sir John Dodson is looked for in the Arches
Court. The beadle having lighted them returned to the
other end of the church, and when asked by Mr. Wester-
ton why he had done so, he replied that Mr. Liddell had
ordered him to light them. The practice of having huge
candles on the altar is one of the many Puseyite imitations
of the Romish ceremonial which has given such offence to
the Protestant portion of the parishioners ; and so loudly
were they denounced that the late Bishop of London, with
that love of compromi e which seems inherent in so many
of the authorities of the Church of England, and is so fatal
to her best interests, although he objected to them, per-
mitted them to remain, but forbade Mr. Liddell to light
them. Mr. Westerton now telt himself called on to act ;
there was not the slightest pretext on the score of dark-
ness for using these candles, the gas burners he had
ordered to be lighted being sufficient for the whole of the
church. Ho therefore left his pow, went up the nave,
ascended the chancel steps, and, passing by Mr. Liddell,
entered the vestry, re—appearing with the extinguisher.
Going within the dwarf screen raised for its protection
from the unsanctified feet of the laity, he reached the
altar and extinguished its monstre lights. Returning the
extinguisher to the vestry he then retired to his pew,
having done it so quickly and so quietly that not the
slightest interruption was caused to the performance of
the service. When Mr. Liddell and Messrs. Smith and
Westall, his curates, got up at the end of the Morning
Prayer to form their usual procession to the altar, Mr.
Liddell, to the surprise of the whole congregation, who
were then standing while the Sanctus was being chanted
by the choir, darted off into the vestry, followed by Mr.
Smith. They returned with a lighted candle. They then
all went up to the altar, Mr. Smith relighting one of the
great candles, and Mr. Westall, before being able to
accomplish a similar feat with the other, was obliged to
lift it down with its massive candlestick, and light it on
the floor—the congregation all this while leaking on with
the greatest amazement. The Communion service then
proceeded, and Mr. Westerton, feeling that further
interference would not only have prevented the service
from being carried on, but lead to a personal struggle
between himself and the clergy, very wisely and most
judiciously remained in his pew. But for this discretion
on the part of the "churchwardens a scene must inevitably
have ensued which would have added another to the many
scandals which the conduct of the clergy both of St Paul's
and St. Barnabas has given rise. Where is the new
Bishop of London ? For nearly two years, during the
indisposition of his predecessor, these Puseyite inovators
have been alto¢ved to run riot in the diocese. Of what
use are bishops and authorities in the Church if its
curates are allowed to do as they please. Can none of
the courts tell us the law and enforce its penalties ? Mr.
Liddell's sermon, which followed this scene, was the third
which, for three successive Sundays, he has tormented
his congregation with since the sentence of deprivation
was passed on Archdeacon Denison, and in which he has
boldly and defiantly upheld him, denounced the judgment
of the archbishop's court, and identified himself with his
doctrine. Amongst the congregation was the Duchess of
Wellington ; and wo are grieved to learn that the Duchess
of Sutherland and other ladies and gentlemen who hold
posts of honour and confidence about the person of the
Queen and her royal relatives are in the habit of for-
saking their own parish churches and attending this or
its chapel of ease, St. Barnabas. Are her Majesty and
her Royal relatives aware of these proceedings of these
members of their suites and households? Her Majesty
is by the law of the land the head of the Reformed Pro-
testant Church of England, and at this crisis in its
history it behoves all who are true to it to avoid giving
any countenance whatever to men who, like Jesuits in
the guise of clergymen in that Church, are working
incessantly to promote its overthrow, by perverting the
simplicity of its worship and faith to the ceremonial and
doctrines of the Church of Rome. As the people left the
church large groups collected together to interchange
their opinions and feeling on the extraordinary scene of
which they had been witnesses.

HANCOCK'S INKsTANn•—One of the most desirable object
in an inkstand is to avoid the exposure of the ink to the air
as much as possible, so as to ensure its limpid supply. This
is accomplished in the above inkstand.—lllustrated London
News. [We have seen the article here referred to, and can
safely endorse the description of our London cotemporary.
Valuable MSS. are often damaged by careless clerks or ser
vants through the upsetting of an inkstand, but the " Paten
Pneumatic Inkstand" offers a guarantee against such mis
fortunes.] —The Northampton Herald.—Advt.

THE CALIFORNIAN PEN.—The everlasting question of
" is this a good pen" has been answered by Mr. E. T. Hall
of South John street, who has succeeded in producing a
metallic pen, which he designates—not inaptly—as above.
There is hardly anything more annoying than a bad pen—
every one knows the misery. The pen made by Mr. Hall is
fit for any hand to use—light or heavy—and, what is of the
greatest value, it does not corrode, but will work with equal
facility in any ink. From experience of metallic pens, we
can say that this one, which is polished as gold, and will
last nearly as long, is the best one we have ever used.—Adv

AS MANTLES and JACKETS are so
very generally worn this Season,
J. MAC LENNAN, 36, CHURCH-STREET,

(OPPOSITE PARKER-STREET),
Has made arra. gements to have a Case of Parts MANTLES
and JACKETS, in Velvets, Reversible Cloths, and all the
other Fashionable Materials, delivered Every Week for the
next Two Months; therefore, those Ladles desirous of
having the Fashions as soon as they make their appearance
in Paris, combined with moderation in prices, are respect-
fully solicited to inspect the Stock.
JUST RECEIVED, from London, Two Cases contain-
ing about 700 MANTLES, commencing at the extraordin-
arily Low Price of 4s. 11d. each.
SHAWL AND MANTLE WAREHOUSE,

OPPOSITE-I;XfiVER STREET,

MACDIARM I D
TRACEIER or
NAVIGATION AND NAUTICAL ASTRONOMY,

ABLY ASSISTED, PRACTICALLY. BY
CAPTAIN A. MACNAUGHTAN,
ACADEMY,
and the
LIVERPOOL MASTER MARINERS' ASSOCIATION'S ROOMS,
24, GREAT GEORGE-SRUARR, LIVERPOOL.
ed.* Inquire, or full copy of prospectus at any of the Opticians.

IMPORTANT TO EMIGRANT RUNNER?..

A case of considerable importance to emigrants, and emi-
, grant runners, came on for hearing yesterday before Mr.
Mansfield, at the Police Court, and attracted much atten-
tion. The court was crowded. It was a charge brought
by Captain Schomberg, at the suit of Messrs. J smes Baines
and a, against Mr. William Weeks, described as an
emigrant runner, cf Pail square, fur a violation of the 70th
section of the Emigration Act. This section provides that
any one using false representation in, order to induct a
passenger to go in a certain ship, &c., incurs a penalty of
£2O maximum, and not less than £5. Captain Schomberg
said, the case was brought under the 70th sec. of the act, and
the short facts were these :—A person named William
McClelland, applied to Messrs. Baines for a passage to
Australia by the ship Joseph Tarratt, having received a
ticket and paid £5 to the defendant Weeks, as a portion of
the passage momey by that ship. When McClelland ap-
plied to Messrs. Babes, he was told that Weeks had no
authority whatever to book passengers, or issue tickets, for
any of their ships, and that Weeks was not ever known at
the office. It further appeared that the defendant had cir-
culated placards over the country, in which he put the
names of Mess's. Baines's favourite ships, hut instead of
putting them down as belonging to the " Black Ball Line,"
he advertised them as the " Golden Line" of packets—
carefully putting in the names of Messrs. Baines ships, and
also those of other lines. This was the cause of the com-
plaint, and as he (Captain Schomberg) observed that both
parties had engag td lawyers in the case, he would not say
any more, as no doubt these gentlemen would open, and
manage the proceedings better than he cauld, as his simp'e
business was to bring the case before the calla as the emi-
gration officer. Mr Forshaw appeared for Messrs. Baines,
and Mr. Godfrey was for the defendant Weeks. Mr.
Forshaw then proceeded to say that he had little more to
offer than what had been already stated by Capt. Schomberg.
The defendant had circulated placards all over the country,
in which he inserted the names of Messrs. Baines' ships,
without the knowledge or authority of Messrs. Baines, or
any one connected with the establishment. The defendant
did not, however, call the ships by the name of the line of
Messrs. Baines, but he called the line the " Golden Line,"
but inserted the name of Mr. Baines' ships. This was, he
would ,repeat, done in order to deceive passengers, and inflict
not only a loss on them, but on the owners also. Passengers
should be protected from fraud and deception, and owners
from loss. If passengers applied to the owners or recog-
nised agents of emigrant ships, they would be protected from
persons, who, like the defendant, wanted to make money
out of the passengers. It appeared, (said he leaned gentle-
man,) that a person named M Ctellaid, was induced to
apply to the defendant, for a passage to Melbourne, and
that he paid him a sum of £5 on account of the passage.
Now, the defendant was in no way whatever, either directly
or indirectly, authorised to take money or book passengers
for the Messrs. Baines, by the ship Joseph Tarratt, which
which was the name of the vessel in which he booked, or
catered the passenger. The sum the defendant had thus
received was, so received, under false pretences, and this was
contrary to the act; and for which he was charged. The
defendant in his placard (exhibited one) had published the
names of the most favourite ships of Messrs. Baines' line,
and other lines of Australian packets • and by such false
means he took all the passengers he could, and made money
out of them. When he got a passenger, he would go to the
owner of the ship and make the best bargain he could—
getting all the money he could from the passengers—and
thus, for some time, he succeeded in booking passengers, but
not as an authorised agent. He (Mr. Forshaw) would call
M'Clelland, and his evidence would be more full, and such
as to establish the case.—M'Clelland was then called, and
stated as follows: About a Week ago, I went to the defendant
and told him I wanted to go to Melbourne. He said
he could send me; anal I said that I wanted to
go in the first ship, and eked him to send me in the
Shooting Star. He said I could not go in that, but
that he would send rue in the Joseph Tarratt. I a ;reed
to that,-and paid him £5 on account, and he gave me this
ticket. (Ticket produced.) Cross-examined by Mr. Godfrey :
I am from the neighbourhoo I of Dudley, but have been living
in Liverpool for five years, and am not quite a stranger in
it. I have a wife and two children. I am clerk to Messrs-
McAndrews, fruit merchants, and I gave them notice that I
would leave. I was not about to take my wife and family
with me to Australia. Mr. Godfrey : Did you not go to
Mr. Weeks by direction of a clerk in Messrs. Baines's
office ? I did not. Did you not go by direction of a clerk
in some office ? Yes. Whose office ? Pilkington and
Wilson. I was in Mr. Baines's office, bat not until after I
paid the £5 to the defendant. When I went to Weeks's
office I said I wanted a ticket for Baines's ship, and he gave
the ticket, and said he would go to the office with me, but
I declined, saying I was in a hurry. I then went to the
office of the " White Star Line" and repeated what had
happened. Had you a motive for going to Mr. Weeks's
office? I had, certainly. Mr. Baines knew I was taking
a berth in the ship, but not until after I had taken it from
the df fendant and paid him the £5 on account of it. Mr.
Weeks gave me tho ticket for the Joseph Tarratt, but he
did not make any attempt to deceive me. Did you know
that Messrs. Baines, and Messrs. Pilkington & Wilson,
were eager to catch hold of Mr. Weeks? I did not. Did
you hear anything about Mr. Weeks's respectability?
No, I heard nothing about his respectability; but I paid
him the and he issued a ticket to me for a ship which
he had no right to do—if that be respectable! Was it not
to involve him in some difficulty that you went to his
office ? It was, so far only as I am concerned. Mr.
Baines went with me to Captain Schomberg's office,
and we saw Week's there. Was he dishonest ? I
do not know ; he may be as highly respectable and
as honest as any man in Liverpool, or he may be other-
wise, for all I can say of him. I got £lOO a year salary.
I have two children. It was not a note, but five sovereigns
I gave him. Mr. Godfrey: On your oath, from whom
did you get the sovereigns : Witness : Mr. Mansfield, am
I to answer that question? Mr. Mansfield: Yes, you may
answer it. Witness : I got them from a clerk in the
" White Star Line," in Pilkington and Wilson's office. I
don't know his name, although I have had conversations
with him. I have a few pounds of my own at home.
Know some persons in Dudley; but I do not know if Mr.
Baines has a* agent there. To Mr. Mansfield: I simply
iorlrd. N.:it/3111es that I knew some persons at Dudley, and
/ got the ticket to try the responsibility of Weeks as an
agent to Mr. Baines. Mr. Godfrey : That was a dodge to
bring, him into a court of law. Mr. Mansfield : When you
went to Mr. Baines, and told him you hail paid the
15 to Weeks, if he (Mr. B.) hid said, pay me
19 Snore and you may go in the ship, would
you have gone in her ? Witness : I would not.
employment ofex Aare isaser sd. Biwa i nAelsr.a nFd° Cr soh.aaws e: g rlaainn t isnu ptehre-
int enden t. I know Weeks, but not by name or personally'
only by seeing him. Mr. Forshaw : Has he, or has
he had, any authority, directly or indirectly, from
Mr. Baines, or any, ono in his employment, to book
Passengers for any of his ships ? Witness : Not
to my knowledge. I remember his coming to the
office, and4wanting to book a passenger, and I should have
booked him, but that I received instructions that no more
third class possengers were to be taken in the ship—the
Joseph Tarratt. The ticket produced by M'Clelland was
not recognised at all at our office. Cross-examined :by
Mr. Godfrey : I have seen him in our office somtimes, and
the cash keeper, by directions, has paid him commission.
Mr. Godfrey: Do you mean as an agent ? Witness : No;
I mean as a " man ea' cher." Mr. James was cross-
examined at considerable length length with a view of
establishing the fact that the defendant was an a•gent of
Mr. Baines, but the witness denied that he was known
at the office even by name, except that ho now and
then called, liko other " man catchers," and booked
an occasional passenger. He admitted that, in the
present case, he (the witness) took down a book to enter
the passenger from the defendant (as is usual), when
a clerk called him into another room, and said that
was Weeks ; he did not know who he was before, and he
refused to take any passengers from him. The witness
had previously seen the ticket issued by the defendant.
The placards issued by the defendant were here exhibited,
when the witness said, these bills would most likely lead
passengers astray. Mr. James Baines was examined, and
said, in reply to Mr. Forshaw : I do not know William
Weeks ; I never saw him to know until the other day. [
did not, directly nor indirectly, authorise him to take any
passengers, or book any. or issue any tickets for any of
our ships. Cross-examined by Mr. Godfrey : The Joseph
Tarratt was not one of our own ships, but an extra
chartered ship. Mr. Godfrey : How many of the ships
on this bill (Dill of defendant produced) are your own?
Two; the James Baines and Marco Polo. I saw M'Clelland
the same evening, in the office. Mr. Mansfield: Would
the ticket be available for the ship, if he had a notion of
going in her,? Witness : It would not. Mr. Mansfield :
Then it was a sham ticket issued by Weeks ? Witness :
It was a a ere sham ticket, and nothing else.
Mr. Godfrey went on to cross-examine Mr. Baines
at much length, the following being the points.
He said a great many persons called at the office and
booked passengers, but these were mere runners, and not
at all' agents to the house. When passengers came to the
office in that way he could take or reject them, just as he
pleased, as he was not bound to the persons who brought
them. Weeks might have come just in that way, and
likely he did so ; but he totally repudiated the idea of
allowing any one like him to issue tickets for the house.
He went with M'Clellanal to Captain Schomberg's office,
and saw Weeks there. Mr. Godfrey : Do you not know
that he is a highly respectable man? Mr. Baines : I
know nothing whatever about his respectability ; in fact,
I did not know him at all until that morning. lk has
placarded the county with bills, in which he has intro-
duced the names of our favourite and well known ships,
and those of other lines also, without a particle of
authority to do so. When Captain Schomberg asked him
(Weeks) at his office if he had placarded other ships than
his (Mr. Baines's), lie replied he had not, and then the
captain showed him a bill, on which was the names of
other favourite ships belonging to other lines and ho
(Mr. Baines) bad brought the defendant here on this
charge, under the section of the Act, in order to show
him that he (Weeks) could not be allowed to use the
names of these vessels against their owners, and for his
(Weeks') profit without authority. Mr. Godfrey :
You pay some hundreds yearly for commissions ;
have you looked at your books to ascertain how much ?
Mr. Baines: I have not; but it is thousands instead of
hundreds. Mr. Godfrey contended that there was no
ease made out against his client. There was no false pre-
tense resorted to on his part. He argued that if any fals•
pretence was resorted to, it was done by McClellan, and
that the ticket given by Weeks was merely a protection to ,
prevent a strange emigrant, as he imagined McClellan to
be, from being swindled in Liverpool. Mr. Forshaw con-

tended that the act was violated by a man issuing a ticket
and taking money on it without any authority. The
defendant had entered into an engagement with
McClellan for a passage in the Joseph Tarratt, and taken
money under false pretences ; for he had no power what-
ever to book passengers for that vessel. He argued that,
by such conduct, emigrants would be defrauded by the
defendant. After a short desultory conversational dis.
cussion between the learned gentlemen at both sides, Mr.
Mansfield said he was of opinion that if McClellan had
been really an intending emigrant, the defendant would
have, by his act, incurred the full penalty of the law. But
it appeared ho was not going to Australia, but went to
the defendant for another purpose. Therefore he was of
opinion that the defendant ought to be acquitted. Case
dismissed.