Your lordships will find Mr. Morgan's evidence at page 19.* Of course, I do not propose to read it all. I will just read the passages which refer to what I have in view. About half way down page 19, the evidence runs thus: "When you seized the Alexandra what was going on at the time on board the ship; was she complete?-When I seized her, about the time of the seizure, the workmen were variously engaged on board her. Do you recollect whether they were preparing anything for the hammock nettings?—Yes; they were fitting the stanchions for the hammock nettings. Were there iron stanchions on board the ship, in the hold?-They were fitted in their places. Do you recollect whether the masts were up?-All three of them. Were there any lightning conductors upon them?-There were lightning conductors upon each mast. Did you make yourself acquainted with the tonnage of the ship?-Yes." Then he goes on to state what the tonnage was. Now that is what Mr. Morgan says.

Then the next witness, my lords, is Mr. Black. The part of his evidence that I wish to refer to is near the bottom of page 61: "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 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 hardware. 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. Then this

question is objected to, and he is finally asked: "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." Then there are a few questions, on cross-examination. at the top of page 63, which I will read: "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 it for decks at all, is it? You say you first saw the Alexandra on the 21st March ?-Yes." Then he is asked who told him to go on board, which I pass from; the date, however, will be material for another purpose; I ask your lordships to observe it now; on the 21st of March Black first saw the Alexandra, having been directed by certain American gentlemen to go on board.

My lords, Mr. Green, at page 102,t says what he saw. He says that he is a ship-builder. I should say that that is hardly accurate. He said at first that he was a ship-builder, but on cross-examination he said that he had not built a ship for twenty years; that he repaired ships; and he gave us a singular piece of information; he said that in his judgment no improvement whatever had taken place in the building of ships for the last twenty years, but that, on the contrary, we were going back; that ships were not so well built now as they were twenty years ago, and that all the changes which had taken place in their construction were not improvements, but deteriorations. That is a matter of opinion, and of course he is entitled to his opinion. In the middle of page 102, as to the bulwarks, he says: "The bulwarks to which I first alluded as being different from any other vessel but a ship of war were composed of very thick planks, three inches thick, inside and out. LORD CHIEF BARON. What was it?-It was teak. The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. What was the thickness?—The inside and the outside planks * See page 11. † See page 35. See page 57.

were three inches thick in the lower part, and two and a half inches thick in the upper part, and they were about two and half feet deep. That would be from the deck to the top. Do I understand from you that that is an unusual thickness for a merchant vessel?—Yes. Had she any masts?-She had three masts. Had she a propeller?—Yes; her propeller was under water. What were her dimensions?" Then he gives the length and breadth, and the tonnage. "Did you observe her rudder?-The rudder was very strong, and a very thick formed rudder; unusually so. Was it thicker and stronger than would be used for a merchant vessel?-It was. You have spoken of the bulwarks; did you observe anything about the bulwarks--any arrangements made for the upper part of the bulwarks to be fitted up with anything?-I discovered several iron stanchions for hammock racks, which were not put up; but there were arrangements being made for the staples to receive them. They were on board, but there were staples in the side of the vessel to receive them." I think that that is a mistake. Ithink it should be, "They were not on board."

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. No, "they were on board.”

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. But they were not put up.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That may be so. I do not know that it is very material; but I should have thought from the "but" that it should run "they were not on board." The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. No; I think that they were on board, but were not put up I examined the witness, and I think that that was so.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I have no recollection of it, but I should have thought, from the collocation of the sentence, that the "not" was left out. "What, in your judgment. were the hammock-racks for?-For hammocks. Is that usual on board a merchant ship?-Very seldom. Did you observe the arrangement of the deck; was there anything peculiar?-The scuttles or hatchways were not suited for a merchant vessel. Would you tell his lordship were they, or were they not, of the same kind as you would find on board a man-of-war?-Yes; quite so. They were of the same kind?-As a small class man-of-war. Did you observe the engines and the boilers?-No; they were only partially up. Did you observe whether there was any particular space before the boilers?-Yes. What was that?-I could not say what that would be appropriated for; there was an entrance to it by a narrow scuttle, not sufficiently large for a hatchway; it would suit a narrow staircase. Was this particular space before the boiler usual in merchant vessels?-Yes; in merchant vessels built for cargo. Was it fitted for carrying cargo?-No; because there was no hatchway, there was only a narrow scuttle. It was not fitted for carrying cargo because there was no hatchway?No; it was only what might be termed a narrow scuttle, which does not come under the denomination of a hatchway. Did you observe the forecastle?-I observed that it was not fitted as a merchant's forecastle, but as I have seen yachts and small vessels of war. Let me ask you, did you observe a cooking apparatus?-Yes; there was a cooking apparatus in the forecastle sufficient for one hundred and fifty or two hundred people. Was that the kind of cooking apparatus which is usual on board merchant vessels?-Only on board of passenger vessels; merchant vessels. which are passenger vessels, have as large, and larger, cooking apparatus, or ships which go on long voyages have as large. But a common merchantman would not have so large an apparatus?-No; not a small vessel like that. Did you observe the cabin?—Yes, I did; so much as was put up of it. Was there anything peculiar in it?—Yes; there appeared to me to be two compartments, which would either be fitted for pantries; but they were larger than pantries are, as I have seen pursers' or officers' cabins, and also the cabins of medical officers, fitted. As you have seen pursers' and medical officers' cabins fitted?—Yes; somewhat similar in their fittings. What did you find on the starboard side of the cabin ?-There were two sleeping berths. each with a bed-place, and drawers under the bed place. You found two sleepingrooms on the starboard side?-Yes; they are sometimes called rooms, and sometimes berths. With beds and drawers underneath the beds, you say?—Yes; drawers underneath the beds. Was there a third room?-There was a third room, but it was not appropriated; I cannot say what it was. But there was a third room?-There was a small room fitted as a pantry, which I might represent as being at the foot of the entrance of the cabin. Was that the one you spoke of just now, or another one?-No. You have spoken as to the starboard side, now tell me as to the port side.—I think there was one cabin with one bed-place on the port side. What sort of a room was that?-The bed-room was similar to the one on the starboard side. What kind of a room did it appear to be destined for?-There was a room before the bed-room, which did not appear to be appropriated; I could not say what that was intended for. Was there an after cabin?—Yes; a small after cabin. How large was that?—Nine or ten feet; I am not sure about the exact size. Did you observe the deck beams?—They were closer together than is usually required in merchant vessels."

Then I find that, just at the bottom of the page, after passing over some argument which took place, the Queen's advocate says: "I will state the question first to your lordship. The witness need not answer it. But I was about to put this question: Was she, in your judgment, adapted for a merchant ship, or for a vessel of war?'"*

The Lord Chief Baron says: "Or for a yacht? The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Yes, my lord; or for a yacht. LORD CHIEF BARON. The non-adaptation to a merchant vessel I have already." Then I think nothing further proceeded in the direct examination; but in the cross-examination, at page 106,* your lordships will see, about twelve lines down: According to your experience in yachts, are the hammocks occasionally put up on these hammock racks?" He says: "Very rarely." "Do they ever do so?" He says: "I have known large sailing vessels fitted up somewhat similar. And fitted with conveniences for putting the hammocks on the bulwarks?-Yes. The sole object of that is for the purpose of greater cleanliness among the men?—Yes. And for having the hammocks put from below to air them?-Yes; and there is another object. Their original intention was to resist shot; that was their original intention. The object, when it is used in a yacht, is for the purpose of airing the hammocks of the men, is it not?-Yes." Then he says that the vessel was unfinished below.

Then, my lords, there is Captain Inglefield, who, at page 58, about half way down the page, is asked: "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 she 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 about thirty-two men. And as regards her build generally, is it your opinion that she is adapted for a man-of-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 preparations 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?" Then the Lord Chief Baron says: "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 that she is easily to be converted into a man-of-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. 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. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. 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 gun?—Yes. But with certain kinds of guns it might be done?-Perfectly."

Then he is cross-examined: "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. You say that the vessel was fitted for a yacht, and is easily convertible to a vessel of war; 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." Now that is the whole of the evidence, I believe, with regard to the condition of the vessel at the time of the seizure.

Mr. BARON CHANNELL. Captain Inglefield speaks as regards stowage room; he says that there is only stowage room sufficient for the crew, considering the crew to be about thirty-two men; that is to say, if the vessel were manned with thirty-two men there would be stowage-room enough for that number of crew.

Mr. BARON PIGOTT. She had no stowage for merchandise.

Mr. BARON CHANNELL. He speaks in another part of the berths, or fittings, being sufficient for a great number; much larger than thirty-two. He also says, that there is a small quantity of stowage room; and either this or another witness says, a very small hatchway; but then he says, that there is stowage room for a crew which would consist of about thirty-two men; that is as I understand it.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. If the crew were there they would take up that space; if they were not there it might be a question of occupying the space in some other way. When your lordship speaks of the hatchway, the other witness to whom your lordship has referred said that light hardware might be put in, but not the ordinary bulky goods of merchandise; and Captain Inglefield said very fairly with regard to the cabins, that of course looking at a yacht, where there would be a very large crew as compared with a merchant vessel, the cabins and accommodation of that kind for men were just the same as and in no way different from the accommodation which you would require on board a yacht.

Now, my lords, the question seems to me, upon this point, to resolve itself into extremely simple elements. Of course we must apply the facts of the case to the construction of the act of Parliament, upon which I have made the observations which I had to make to your lordships, and I now refer to those observations for the purpose of applying the evidence. With regard to the structure, the strength of the bulwarks, and the sort of timber, be it teak or anything else, I apprehend that if I am right in saying that the building of any kind of vessel is not within the act of Parliament, that is a matter which we need not go into with regard to the question whether her condition is an offense against the act of Parliament. It may be proper, if you like to look at it upon the question of intent; that is a wholly different matter; it may be proper there to consider whether she had or not the appearance of a vessel which could be used for war; but upon the first part of the case, namely, the question whether there is the equipping, fitting out, furnishing, or arming, pointed at by the act of Parliament, I apprehend that the structure of the hull is irrelevant, and that we may put it altogether aside. Then over and above that, what we have to consider with regard to the ship is this: There is here no suggestion that there was anything in preparation which was not on board, except it may be (which I am willing to allow) any part of the machinery which may have been required to complete the whole machinery of the ship. It probably is to be taken upon this evidence, that the machinery was not entirely on board; but a very great part of it was on board, and I will even argue the case as if the whole had been on board. There is the machinery, there are the hammock nettings, and, if you like to add them, the masts.

Now, in the first place, I should take leave to submit to your lordships that it is not the case that any of those things are equipments of any sort. Those I apprehend are really part of the ship as a whole ship-part of the ship as distinguished from other things which might be added to the ship afterward. The machinery in a ship which is to be propelled by steam is of course a part of the ship without which she can have no existence as a steamship. So also with regard to the masts; so also with regard to things like the stanchions to receive the hammock nettings, which, according to the evidence of Mr. Green himself, are things which in their original invention no doubt were put upon the sides of warlike vessels to resist shot, but which in their use at the present day, he says, are used on board merchant vessels, and are used on board yachts, for a purpose which is a very intelligible one, namely, for putting out the hammocks

to dry, and to air, and to be ventilated properly at the side of the ship. I should say, therefore, if it were necessary, that those are things which really are part of the structure of the ship. But it is not necessary for me to argue that here. I say with confidence (and it is sufficient for my purpose) that it is in vain to contend that any of those things were warlike equipments of the distinctive character which is meant when that term is used. It is absurd to suppose that the machinery of a ship to be propelled by steam power is warlike fittings of that ship; it is absurd to suppose that the masts of the ship are warlike equipments of the distinctive character which I mention. It is equally absurd to suppose that stanchions for hammock nettings are warlike equipments, when we find that, whatever may have been the reason for their original introduction, they are now used on board merchant vessels and on board yachts. At this stage of the case there is no suggestion of any other kind of addition to the ship, or of work done upon the ship, which could come under the head of "equipment" or "fitting out." I say, as to those things which are spoken of in this compendious form, that there is not one of them which could be properly described as a warlike equipment of any kind.

But then it was said that a case could be made out which would bring the work either done or about to be done to the ship within the act; that it could be shown that there were guns which were in course of preparation, and which were intended for the ship.

Mr. BARON PIGOTT. Before you pass to that, it may become very material whether the word "not" ought to be in the evidence or not, because that applies to the hammock nettings; the words are, "they were on board."

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. At what page is that, my lord?

Mr. BARON PIGOTT. Page 103.*

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I do not know whether my lord has a note upon that matter

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. There is no difference in the notes.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. And my recollection is very strong upon the subject.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I do not at all suggest it from memory, but merely from the collocation of the words used.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. My recollection is that the witness said that they were on board, and not put up.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Perhaps I can save trouble on that point. The staples were there to receive the hammock stanchions. I should be very sorry to make a distinction between the staples and the stanchions to be put upon the staples. I should say, that the stanchions were there, which were to be received by the staples. Whether they were on board or not, there is clearly an indication of an intention to receive the hammock stanchions; the vessel was made to receive hammock stanchions, and I am quite content to deal with it on that footing.

Mr. BARON CHANNELL. The staples show the intention, whether the stanchions were on board or not.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Certainly, my lord, and I do not think it at all proper to make a distinction between the two.

My lords, I was going to refer to that which, of course, would have opened a very different case indeed if it had been susceptible of proof, and if it had been intended to be proved by any proper evidence, namely, that guns were being prepared which were intended to be put on board this vessel within her Majesty's dominions, or that guns were being prepared, as to which the just conclusion was, that they were intended to be put on board within the kingdom.

Now, your lordships will find the way in which the attorney general at the trial opened his case with regard to the guns. At page 15,† about ten lines from the bottom, the attorney general says: "You will also have evidence as to Captain Tessier, equally and under like circumstances, inspecting the progress of the Alexandra; you will have the fact that the machinery for the Alexandra was constructed in the foundery of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, and that one large gun and two small rifle swivel guns were also constructed in the foundery for the purpose of being placed in and forming part of the armament of the Alexandra." Now, my lords, the Crown thought that they were going to prove that, which I suppose they conceived was not a very unimportant part of the case upon which the Crown detained this vessel, and claimed the forfeiture-namely, that three guns were being constructed by Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, for the purpose of being placed in and forming part of the armament of the Alexandra.

Now, the evidence upon this point was the evidence of three witnesses; and I will take leave to refer your lordships to them shortly. The first of them was Robinson, at page 40. He is asked: "You are a joiner, living in Liverpool?-Yes. You were formerly in the employ of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company?—I was. How long since is it that you have left ?-I left about two months ago. Was it your business there to make gun-carriages?—Yes, that was my employment. LORD CHIEF BARON.— What are the names of your employers ?-Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company. Mr. See page 22.

See page 57.

See page 23.