SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I have no objection to the question, then, if that is all.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Did he give you any orders?—Yes.

What were the orders?—To see if the things were ready, and to take them if they were ready, as the men were waiting for them in the yard.

To take them where?-To take them up to Mr. Miller's yard, or to the boat.

Or to where?-To the gun-boat.

Those were the words of Mr. Speers ?-As far as I remember.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. As far as you recollect?—Yes.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Where did you take them in consequence of that order?I took them to the yard, and left them in the stores of Miller's yard.

What became of them afterward?—The men would be waiting to use them when I got there.

What ship was it ?-The ship now called the Alexandra.

Was the Alexandra in the stores at that time?-Yes.

You saw the things in consequence of that order taken to the Alexandra?-Yes; the men have been waiting for them, and when I have taken them they have said, "Are those for the gun-boats?" and I have said "Yes."

The men were waiting for them?—Yes.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Never mind what men were waiting for them.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. He said, "Are those for the gun-boat?"—Yes.
And you said "Yes"?-Yes.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that being taken as his answer.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Never mind; he has given the answer.

You were often in the packing-room, I suppose-Yes.

Do you know a person of the name of Hamilton ?-Yes.

Did you ever see him there?—Yes.

Who was he with ?-Sometimes alone, and sometimes with Mr. Sillem, and sometimes with Mr. Mann, but he was more often with Mr. Mann.

Were any of the other members of the firm with him?—Yes.

Mr. Willink?-Yes.

What did he come about?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. No, that is not the proper question. What did he say or do? The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Do you recollect anything he said in their presence in the packing room?-No.

Do you remember anything he ever did in their presence?—No, except examining the shot and shell.

Did he talk to them about it?-Mr. Sillem and Mr. Hamilton were talking about it. I could not understand what they said.

You did not hear what they said; they were talking, and they examined the shot and shell?-Yes.

Did their conversation stop when you came near them?—No; I did not notice them stop their conversation.

Have you ever seen Mr. Hamilton at Miller's yard?—I met him coming along the yard. Do you recollect anything Mr. Sillem ever said to Mr. Hamilton; when he spoke to him what did he call him?-I never heard him say anything.

Do you recollect anything being said about the clench rings that were being made for this ship; did Mr. Hamilton speak to any of the partners or to Mr. Speers?-Mr. Hamilton has been down to Fawcett, Preston & Co.'s premises, and as soon as he has gone away there has been an order to get these things ready.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Listen to the question. Did you ever hear Mr. Hamilton say anything to the partners on the subject of the clenches?—No.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Were any orders given after Mr. Hamilton came to the yard concerning these clenches?-Yes.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. By whom?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. By any one of the partners?-Yes; to get these up to the boat. They were in a very great hurry for these clenches and bolts at that time.

Do you recollect when these orders were given?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Was this by Sillem or by whom?-The manager.

Mr. Speers?-Yes.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Do you recollect in what terms the orders were given ?-To see for bolts and clenches, and take what was ready to the yard at once.

Were those orders given immediately after a visit from Hamilton 7-Yes; on one or two occasions.

As soon as he had gone?-Yes.

Did you take the clenches and bolts yourself?—Yes; I did.

In consequence of that order?-I suppose so.

Do you recollect packing any of the guns that were made at that time?—No; not the large ones. I packed the small ones.

How many guns were there for that job?-Intended for the boat, three.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Really my friend ought not to put such questions. I object to

my friend putting his question in that way, "for that job." We have not heard that there were any guns for any job yet.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. You say you packed the two smaller guns; was that at the same time the machinery was being made for this boat?-Yes.

Do you know what was done with them?-They were sent down to the northwestern railway station.

Which station?-At Wapping.

In Liverpool?—Yes.

Were the carriages packed as well as the guns?—Yes.

Were there a good many carriages?—Yes.

How many-Sixteen or seventeen.

Did you ever hear any one of the partners of the firm, or Mr. Speers say for what ship those guns were intended?-No.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. I do not think that Speers would do, except in the giving of some actual direction.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. My intention was to refer to what he said in giving orders as manager. However, the witness says no.

Is it within your knowledge how those packages were addressed?-They were marked O. A. and C. B. with a diamond, and numbered.

To whom were they addressed?-To Captain Blakely, Camden, London.

Did you see the delivery note?-A. Yes, I did.

In whose hands did you see it ?-Sinclair's.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. We have given notice to produce.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That will not do.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. We have given notice to produce, and we shall produce evidence.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. What I object to is the witness giving evidence of the delivery note.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. He must give such a description as will identify it; otherwise we cannot call for its production.

You saw the delivery note?-Yes.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. We call for that.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. What delivery note are you speaking of?-The delivery note is left at the goods station, and signed to say that they have received the goods.

Signed at the station ?-Yes, my lord.

Who sent them to be signed?-Mr. Bradshaw.

Who is Mr. Bradshaw ?-The manager.

Is he the manager of the defendants?-In the packing room.

Mr. KARSLAKE. He is proved to be the packer, under whom this man acted.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. He is the manager in the packing room. We call for that delivery note. We have given notice to produce it, and I suppose therefore it will be produced.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Is there an admission of the notice to produce?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It is not disputed.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The notice will not be disputed. This does not refer to the Alexandra in particular.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Sir Hugh Cairns, do you admit the notice to produce ?— Yes.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. You saw a document which you called a delivery note?— Yes.

Where did you see it?-In Sinclair's hands.

Who is Sinclair?-The shipper; the man who goes out with the goods.

Is he a man carrying on business at Liverpool?-No; he is employed at Fawcett, Preston & Co.'s as a laborer, and any goods which have to go out he takes them, or goes along with them; if he requires any men to assist him, he takes them also.

He takes them from your premises up to the railway station?--From Fawcett, Preston and Company's.

Where did you see this document in Sinclair's possession?—At the Wapping Station. He was showing it to the man who takes the goods.

Is that the last time you saw it?—Yes.

When he was at the station delivering the goods at the station?—Yes.

You saw no more of it?—No.

Is it usual, to your knowledge, for delivery notes of that description to be made in duplicate?-Yes.

Is it usual for one part to be filled in ?—Yes.

At the office of Fawcett and Company?—Yes.

Is the other part kept by the railway company?—Yes; or they destroy it.

Did you ever hear any partner in the firm speaking of Mr. Hamilton, and saying

what or who he was?—I never heard of any partner saying what Mr. Hamilton was. I heard one of the clerks.

No.

In the presence of the partners?-No.

Did you hear him speaking to the clerk in the presence of any of the partners?—

According to the course of business, is it generally stated and made known in the office for whom an order is given? Is that the usual course of business?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Is it the course of business to state and make known? Is that a proper question?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. It is a perfectly legitimate question, whether the usual course of the business is that when orders are given to be executed, the name of the person for whom the order is to be executed is stated.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that question. My friend must explain his question. The LORD CHIEF BARON. I do not quite see the point of the question.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The point could only appear if I put that question, and followed it up by the next; but the question, I apprehend, is perfectly legitimate in itself. The question is whether, according to the usual course of business in the office, it is customary to give the names of the persons for whom the order is to be executed. The LORD CHIEF BARON. To give it out in public?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. To the workmen and persons employed in the office. Whether it is the usual course of business in Fawcett, Preston and Company's office to

do so.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Do you mean that the workmen were told the contents of the written order?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. No; only I wish to ask whether it was the usual course of business to identify the orders when given out by mentioning the persons for whom they were to be executed.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Do you mean the workmen who were to execute them? The SOLICITOR GENERAL. No; my question is, whether the workmen were informed, when the order was given to them, who the persons were for whom the goods were to be made, so as to identify the order.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. That is a question you may put, certainly.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. The objection that I take to the question is this. This gentleman is employed in a packing room. That is the only business that he has. He is employed, when the goods are completely finished, to take them or send them to the railway for their destination, which is the working of Fawcett, Preston and Company, which we are told are premises where nine hundred men on an average are employed. The LORD CHIEF BARON. Sir Hugh Cairns, it is no objection to a question and the answer that it is altogether incredible.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. No doubt.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. Because I cannot imagine that any person acquainted with business would suppose that the workmen in a great establishment like the one described would know for whom they are doing the work. There can be no objection to the question.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Well, I will say nothing further upon it, my lord.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The answer may be of little value, or not; but I should like to have an answer to it, whether it was usual for the names of the persons for whom orders were to be executed to be mentioned ?—Sometimes, either by a number

or a name.

The LORD CHIEF BARON. I can understand why a number should be given out, because it is to associate one part of the work with the other; therefore, that one can very well understand.

You would always know the number from the drawing or something else?—Yes. The LORD CHIEF BARON. There is no occasion to give a number, then.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. In this case was any name given ?-No.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. No, no; my friend must ask, was this workman there when it was given out?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I speak of that which comes within this particular witness's knowledge; but as he has said no to the question already, that relieves us from your objection.

You have already said, with respect to the machinery of the bolts and the clenches, that a number was given?-A number?

Yes?-No, only the quality.

I am not sure you understand my question. Did you not state, with respect to the machinery, which to your knowledge was taken on board the Alexandra, and the clenches and the bolts, that they were made by a particular number?—Yes.

What was the number?-Two thousand two hundred and nine.

Did you ever see Mr. Hamilton inspecting that machinery while it was being made ?— Yes; I have seen him inspecting it.

Do you remember the night before the Alexandra was seized?—Yes.

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 Í 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