Were any orders given by Mr. Speers that night for sending anything on board her ?— Yes; nothing more was to be done.

Was that after the seizure?—Yes.

Do you recollect any orders given before which were countermanded by that order? Were any orders given before the seizure to take anything down to the ship?—They came down from the workshops to the packing-room.

What were they?-Eccentric pump-buckets and bright work.

Those were to have been put on board, but were stopped?-No; they were in the packing-room, and were to go down in the morning, when she was seized.

Do you recollect anything being done for a ship called the Oreto, previously?—I imagine; but I cannot say anything about that, because I was not in the packing-room at that time.

Do you remember the time that it was talked about?—Yes.

At that time were you sent to carry letters?—Yes.

To what firm?-To firms all over Liverpool.

Among others, did you carry any from Fawcett and Company to a firm named Fraser, Trenholm and Company?-Several.

Was the communication frequent between those two firms ?—Yes.

And you often had to carry those letters?-Yes, very often.

Do you recollect the time when the Oreto sailed?-Yes.

Do you recollect being sent out with any notes the evening before?—Yes.

Were there two notes?—Yes.

Where were they sent ?-One to Fraser, Trenholm & Company, and the other to the Dock Company at the quay.

Did you hear either of those notes read by either of the persons to whom they were delivered?-Yes, at the Dock Company's office, I did.

What did you hear?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that question

The Lord CHIEF BARON. What note was it?

The WITNESS. It was a note to the Dock Company's office, stating

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Never mind what it stated.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Did the Oreto sail the next day ?—I believe she did.

You were not present at her sailing, were you?—No, I was not present; I was in the yard.

You did not see her go?-Yes, I did; but I did not see her start.

Did you see whether any members of the firm of Fawcett & Company were on board of her-No; I was not there when they started.

Cross-examined by Sir HUGH CAIRNS:

Just tell me exactly your business in the warehouse of Fawcett, Preston and Company; you say you were in the packing-room ?—Yes.

Employed as a laborer there?-Yes; at first.

And what were you employed at afterward?-In the packing-room, to assist Mr. Bradshaw.

You were first employed as laborer in the yard ?—Yes.

And then as laborer to help packing?—To take Mr. Bradshaw's place when he was not there.

You were assistant packer?-Yes.

Was it your business to be in the machinery room; in the place were the machinery was made?—Yes; if we were waiting for it we went to the machinery room, if they did not send it down to us.

But, excepting for the purpose of waiting for it to pack it, you had nothing to do at the place where the machinery was made-Anything that was required we should ask for.

Had you anything to say except to wait for it ?—Yes; we had to ask how long it would be before it was ready.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Then you waited for it?—Yes, sometimes, if it would not be long; sometimes we would go away and come back again.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. If it was ready you waited and got it, and if it was not ready you went away and came back?—Yes.

When did you leave Fawcett, Preston and Company's service?—A. I am sure I forget the date.

Tell me about the date?-Some time in April, I think; at the same time Carter left; it was in the same week. He left on the Saturday, and I left on the Wednesday or the Thursday.

Was that after the vessel was seized?—Yes.

You were discharged, were you not?—Yes.

What for?-Being absent for a day.

What led to your being absent ?-I missed the breakfast time, and I was not there in time for the bell, and I stopped away all day then.

You were discharged for drunkenness, were you not?-No; I was not discharged for drunkenness. They said I was drunk, and I said I was not. Speers says to me, "Where were you yesterday?" I said, "I was ill;" and he said, "We heard you were drunk, and, therefore, put on your coat," and nothing more passed.

That was the reason assigned for your discharge ?—Yes.

But it was not true?-No; I was not drunk.

Captain EDWARD AUGUSTUS INGLEFIELD, called and sworn, and examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL :

Are you the commander of her Majesty's ship Majestic ?—I am captain.

Is that ship stationed at Liverpool?-She is.

Have you, assisted by the carpenter of your ship, examined the Alexandra, lying in the Toxteth dock ?—I have.

Since the time of the seizure, I believe?—Yes.

Did you carefully examine her fittings, as far as they have gone ?—I did.

Are you able to describe to the jury the character of the vessel, as to her timber and construction generally?—I can.

Of what timber is she built?-Principally of teak; her upper works are of other material; the kind of wood I cannot exactly say, but I should call her a strongly-built vessel, certainly not intended for mercantile purposes, but might be used, and is easily convertible into a man-of-war.

And speaking of the strength of the vessel, is she in your judgment of such strength as would be adapted to her being used as a man-of-war?-She is.

Did you find whether she had an accommodation for men and officers, such as would have to serve on board a man-of-war ?-She has.

And as regards stowage room and the building of the vessel, what say you to that ?— As regards stowage room, she has only stowage room sufficient for the crew, considering the berthing of the crew to be for thirty-two men.

And as regards her build generally, is it your opinion that she is adapted for a manof-war-She is quite capable of being converted into a man-of-war without having, at the time I saw her, any appearance of fittings for guns.

You say that there were no guns or immediate preparation for guns?-There were

none.

But having regard to the building of the vessel, might she or not in your opinion be fitted for guns?

The LORD CHIEF BARON. He has said that already-that she is. He said that she might be used as a yacht, and easily converted into a vessel of war.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I wish particularly to call his attention to her fittings to receive guns.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. He has already said she is easily to be converted into a manof-war.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Including her adaptation to receive guns?-She is of sufficient length to receive guns, but without any of those appurtenances which would indicate that guns were about to be put on board.

Would you tell us to what you refer, Captain Inglefield, in speaking of the appurtenances which indicate an absolute intention of putting guns on board?-Ring bolts at the side and plates on the decks upon which pivot guns would turn.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. There were none of those.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. No; he says there were none, and I ask him what were the appurtenances.

Would there be any difficulty in your judgment in adding to the ship as she is now those preparations for guns?-No difficulty.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Not only no difficulty, but it could be easily done?-Easily converted into a man-of-war.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. When you speak of a pivot on the deck, do you speak of three guns or of several guns?-She might have two or three pivot guns.

Would she, according to the ordinary arrangement now-a-days of men-of-war of her size, probably carry two or three guns or more on pivot?-Probably three guns.

Would those, according to the ordinary course in these matters, be guns varying in size, or guns of the same size ?-Of varying size.

Supposing there were guns according to the ordinary course in such arrangements, would the smaller guns or the greater predominate in number?—I could only tell what guns would be fitted to the vessel by knowing what size was intended to be put on board. If they were smaller guns they must have ports; but if guns of certain dimensions, they would be pivot guns, and would fire over the bulwarks.

Without ports?-Without ports.

I suppose if it were intended that they should fire over the bulwarks, the bulwarks would be constructed comparatively low, would they not?—Yes; they would.

How did you find the bulwarks in this ship?-Low, but not similar to the bulwarks of gunboats in our service.

3 A C-VOL. V

Over which they were to be fired?-Of certain dimensions.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Those were low, but not low enough, according to our service, was, I think, your answer?--Not the same description as those in our service. They would be flying bulwarks.

But would there be any difficulty, without proper gun carriages, in firing guns over those bulwarks ?-It would be entirely dependent on the size of the gun.

But with a proper adaptation of the size of the guns it might be done?-Certainly. About what height, so far as you recollect, of gun carriage, would be required to enable the gunners to fire over those bulwarks?-The gun carriage and slides in different kinds of guns vary very much in size, therefore I must know the kind of gun to be able to judge of the height or size of the carriage.

It would depend on the kind of the gun?--Yes.

But with certain kinds of guns it might be done?-Perfectly.

Cross-examined by SIR HUGH CAIRNS:

On what calculation do you arrive at the conclusion that this vessel would have accommodation for thirty-two in the crew? Is that upon the usual navy allowance of room?—Yes. The length of her in the lower decks was thirty feet by fifteen, giving nine inches for each man; that would stow thirty-two men.

You only give nine inches for each man in the navy?-Nine inches only.
That is rather close quarters, is it not?-Yes, rather.

war.

You say that the vessel was fitted for a yacht, and is easily convertible to a vessel of She could be used, I suppose, for mercantile purposes, not merely for a yacht, but she was capable of being used for mercantile purposes?-No, she was not capable of being used for mercantile purposes, because she had no stowage for merchandise.

What state were her cabins in when you saw her?-They were not finished, but they were all laid out and bulkheaded off. Besides the accommodation for men, there were cabins for five officers, a captain's cabin, and a mess-place.

Were the cabins fitted up, or did you merely see the partitions between them?-They were partly fitted up; sufficiently to distinguish them as cabins.

What was the difference between the cabins you saw and the sort of cabins that might be found in a yacht, supposing she was to be used for that purpose?-No difference. Mr. NEIL BLACK was called and sworn, and examined by Mr. LOCKE:

You live at 18 Neptune street, Liverpool?—Yes.

You are a ship-carpenter?-Yes.

How long have you been engaged in ship-building?-From twenty to thirty years.
Have you been engaged in vessels intended for war purposes?-Sometimes.
When was it that you saw the vessel Alexandra?-On the 21st March last.

Where was she?-Lying across the Toxteth dock, Liverpool.

Did you go on board of her ?—Yes.

Did you examine her carefully-Not particularly.

What did you do; did you take her measurement ?-I looked at her upper works, and a gentleman came and ordered me ashore. I afterward learned he was a builder.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Did you know that at the time?-Yes; I was looking at the vessel when a gentleman came aboard and ordered me ashore.

Did you afterward see him ?—Yes.

Do you know who he is now ?—Yes, my lord.

Well, who was he?-Mr. Miller.

Mr. LOCKE. What did he say to you?

The LORD CHIEF BARON. This is nothing to what he said.

Mr. LOCKE. He ordered you away?—Yes.

Did you go there again?-Yes.

By whose directions?-By Mr. Squarey's.

Who is he?-I believe he is a lawyer in Liverpool.

Were you interfered with on this second occasion when you went ?-I was.

By whom?-By Mr. Miller.

He came again?—Yes.

Was Mr. Squarey there?—No.

Did he turn you out of the vessel again?-No.

How was it he did not?-Because I would not go for him.

And Mr. Miller remained there?-He looked in my face and told me my face indieated I was a spy.

What did you say to that?--I told him that I was there

The LORD CHIEF BARON. This is not evidence against the defendant. He was an agent of theirs, to make conditions, or do anything.

Mr. LOCKE. But here is Mr. Miller exercising ownership over this vessel.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. That is of no use.

Mr. LOCKE. When was it Mr. Miller allowed you to measure the ship?-I did not ask permission to measure her.

You did measure her ?-Yes, I did.

What was her length?--About one hundred and twenty-seven feet.
Have you your measurements with you ?—No.

What breadth was she?-About twenty-one and a half feet, as well as I can recollect. Across the beams?-Yes.

And how many tons ?-About two hundred and forty or two hundred and fifty, builders' measurement.

Was she strongly built?-Yes.

Of what wood?-Her frame was of British oak, and her planking, so far as I could see, was of teak.

Is it thick-Her frame is not extraordinarily strong, but the planking, both outside and inside, is stronger than is usual for vessels of that class to be classed at Lloyd's. How far apart were her beams? Well, they averaged about two feet apart; some were more and some were less.

Of what length ?-The beams?

Yes. The extreme beam of the ship was twenty-one and a half feet.

Did you observe her hatchways?—Yes.

What was the width of the hatchways?-They were not wider than from two feet to two and a half feet.

Did you ever see a merchant vessel with a hatchway only two feet or two and a half feet wide-No.

Could a vessel with a hatchway of that width be used as a merchant vessel ?—Not generally; not for bale goods, or anything of that kind.

You could not get the goods into her ?-No.

What could she do as a merchant vessel ?-She might put in small packages of hard

ware.

They could not get the ordinary merchandise put into a merchant vessel into such hatchways?-No.

What is the ordinary width of the hatchway of a merchant vessel?-It would be of various sizes; from five to six or seven feet wide. There is no particular size.

But you never heard of a merchant vessel with a hatchway of two feet or two and a half feet in width only ?-No.

What are its beams made of?-British oak; for the boiler space they are made of iron.

Did you examine the bulwarks?—Yes.

Did anything strike you with regard to the bulwarks; were they the bulwarks of a merchant vessel?-No.

For what reason were they not?-From their extraordinary strength.

Did you mark anything with respect to their height?-Their height is about two and a half feet.

Is that high or low ?-It might do with regard to height for a merchant vessel, but it is generally higher for a merchant vessel.

But you say that the bulwarks were stronger than are used in a merchant vessel ?— Yes.

And likewise lower?—Yes.

Now what are the upper decks made of?-Pitched pine.

Have you ever seen pitched pine used for the decks of any vessel except vessels of war?-No.

You never have?-No, except they are between decks.

Do you consider this vessel altogether unadapted to mercantile purposes?—It is not qualified for mercantile purposes.

In your opinion, having examined her-in your experience, what do you consider that she must have been built for?

The LORD CHIEF BARON. That is not quite the form of question that should be put; for what is she adapted would do better.

Mr. LOCKE. For what is she adapted?-She is adapted for war purposes.

What is her appearance?—A very fine appearance. She looks a handsome piece of architecture; very fine lines, capable of great speed, according to the power of machinery.

What kind of war vessel should you say she has been built for?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. He says she is "adapted for," not "built for."

For a gunboat.

Cross-examined by Mr. MELLISH:

Do they use pitch pine for the decks of war vessels? I understand you to say that pitch pine is not usually used for the decks of merchant vessels; is it used for the decks of war vessels?-I never saw it used for the decks of merchant vessels.

Did you ever see it used for war vessels ?—Yes.

Is it usual to use it for the decks of war vessels ?-Sometimes; but not often.

But not often; in fact it is not usual to use them for decks at all, is it? You say you first saw the Alexandra on the 21st March ?—Yes.

Who told you to go on board?-A gentleman I was working for.

Who was he?-Captain Knight, of the ship The New World.

Is that an American ship -Yes.

A New York ship?—Yes.

I thought you told me he told you to go on board?-He asked me if I had seen the ship, and I said no; then he asked me if I would go and look at her, and give him my opinion; I did so.

Then were you taken to the American consul?-I went there.

What orders did they give you there?-None whatever with regard to the Alexandra, further than to ask my opinion.

Did they say anything about payment ?—No.

Nothing-Nothing.

They simply wanted your opinion about the Alexandra?—Yes.

Now, did you apply for the order to see the Alexandra ?—I did.

To whom-To Mr. Squarey.

He is the solicitor for the American consul?-I am not aware.

But you applied to Mr. Squarey, the solicitor, for an order to see the Alexandra ?— Yes.

How came you to apply to him? He is the gentleman sitting there, before my friend Mr. Locke -Yes.

How came you to apply to him?-I wanted to see her.

Who told you to go to him?—No person.

Why did you go to him more than to any other man in Liverpool? Did you go to any other solicitor in Liverpool besides him to see which was the proper man to give you an order ?-No.

It was by accident you went to Mr. Squarey?—No, not by accident.

Why did you go to Mr. Squarey?-Because I knew he had the power to give an

order.

Who told you so ?-He told me so himself.

Then he met you?—Yes.

Do you mean he gave you a written order?-No; he went along with me.

Then you came to Miller's yard ?—No, I did not.

Where was the vessel at that time?-Toxteth dock.

Which way did you get on board?-I walked on board.

Without asking permission?-I asked the custom-house officer.

She was not seized then?-She was.

I am speaking when you went and looked, on the 21st of March.-I walked on board then.

Was that in the dock?-In the dock.

Mr. Miller came and said you looked like a spy?—Not then.

That was subsequently?—Yes.

Mr. JOHN WILSON GREEN was then called, but did not answer.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. We will have this witness called in court, and out of court, and then I shall request the clerk to call him upon his subpœna.

The witness not answering, was then called three times upon his subpœna, and did not answer.

Mr. JOHN DA COSTA Sworn and examined by the QUEEN'S ADVOCATE :

What are you by profession?-A shipping agent, a ship-owner, and a steamboat

owner.

Do you know the firm of Messrs. Miller & Sons ?-I do.

Do you know the man who superintends Miller's yard ?—Yes.

When did you first know Mr. Miller, senior ?—Not until we were contracting for the building of the boat Emperor. That would be in February or March, 1862.

Had you some business with them about building a tug-boat?-Yes.

I believe you were a partner in the company for which that tug-boat was to be built?-Yes.

Did you go to Mr. Miller's yard at that time about your boat ?-In February, 1862, I went there.

Did you go with a Mr. Corkhill?—I did.

When you got there what did you do with Mr. Miller? I do not ask you what he said?-Mr. Thomas Miller-it was the son of Mr. Miller I saw.

What did you do with him?-He took me and Mr. Corkhill on board the Oreto, and there pointed out the vessel.

Did he say something about that vessel? I do not ask you what.-He did.
The LORD CHIEF BARON. What has he to do with the Oreto?