LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Or for a yacht?

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Yes, my lord, or for a yacht.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. The non-adaptation to a merchant vessel I have already.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Then I will bow to your lordship's ruling, but I thought as an expert he might answer the question.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He says in one part that she was fitted for a yacht and therefore might be used as a yacht or as a small vessel of war.

Cross-examined by Mr. KARSLAKE:

Your business lately has been more in repairing vessels than building them?—Yes. I am right in assuming that for five-and-twenty years last past you have not built a vessel at all?-I think much later than that.

Then for the last twenty years I may say that you have not built a vessel at all?— About twenty years.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. The last vessel you built was twenty years ago?— Yes, my lord.

Mr. KARSLAKE. Where is your ship-building yard, or rather your ship-repairing yard?-In Boundary street, Liverpool.

I suppose there are great improvements being made constantly in vessels?—No; there may be alterations, but very few improvements of late years.

You say improvements, not alterations?—Alterations are not improvements.

Then the science of ship-building has stood still since you gave up building ships?— No; it stood still before I gave up building.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. There are not many alterations that are improve

ments.

Mr. KARSLAKE. None, he says, my lord.

Just one word about the bulwarks of this vessel. You say they are peculiarly strong?-I do.

Does your knowledge enable you to tell me whether in a vessel of that construction it is necessary to have the bulwarks strong to strengthen it ?-They have nothing to do with the strength. It has rather a tendency to weaken the vessel than to strengthen her.

Did you examine the build of the vessel below?—I did not examine her very distinctly below.

Was she in the water at the time you saw her?-In the water.

Will you tell me, as a ship-builder, whether it is not a fact that bringing up the bulwarks with additional strength added to the strength of the vessel?-No, it did not. It weakened her. It was an unnecessary weight, unless for resistance of shot.

You say that, not having seen the vessel under the water line?-This was in the

water.

Did you see it below?-I say under any circumstances it would weaken her.

Did you see the vessel under the water line?-No, not externally.

Did you ever build a dispatch boat?-No.

Did you ever build a boat for the opium trade?—I have built a sailing vessel.
Not a screw steamer?—No; a sailing vessel.

You never built a screw steamer at all?-No.

They came in after your time? It is not the case that the rudder post is necessarily larger in a vessel that carries a screw than in other vessels ?—No.

That is your experience?—I know it as a fact; and I have made the survey of them for government for upward of eleven years.

According to your experience in yachts, are the hammocks occasionally put up on these hammock racks?-Very rarely.

Do they ever do so?—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.

I think you said the vessel was unfinished below?—Unfinished.

What were the dimensions of the cooking apparatus you told me of?—I did not measure it, but I should say it was for 150 or 200 men.

I should like to know the dimensions?—I have no doubt that the fireplace was somewhere about three feet nine inches, perhaps it might be from three feet and a half to four feet.

You say that in a vessel destined for carrying passengers, it is unnecessary to have the cooking apparatus of that size?—Oh, yes, some have longer ones.

Re-examined by the QUEEN'S ADVOCATE :

I did not understand what you said about the hammock racks as to their resisting shot-The original fixing of hammocks on the hammock racks was to resist shot from musketry, which they will do.

As I understand you, that is not usual on board merchant ships?-Very rarely so. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Mr. Attorney General, an application has been made to me about the other cause of Bulloch. The proceedings end here to-morrow. My brother Martin will, I believe, be disengaged to-morrow, or perhaps he will have part of to-day disengaged. When I spoke to him in the morning he had some hopes of finishing in time to render assistance to the cause which now alone remains. Now, if you could dispatch some part of your army we might dispose of that at the same time; but I suppose there is no chance of its coming on to-day.

Mr. KARSLAKE. I don't think the case can be tried to-day. I am for the defendant, with my friend.

Mr. HAWKINS. There are two defendants.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Which cause are you referring to?

Mr. KARSLAKE. The cause of Bulloch.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. It cannot come on here to-day. It seems to me out of the question, so far as I can form any judgment. So far as this case is concerned it might be a remanet. The London sittings begin on Thursday next, and therefore, instead of keeping the witnesses and jurymen waiting after the possibility of trial has become extinct, it would be better to relieve them.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I should not object to the cause being made a remanet, as far as I am concerned. I don't think they can be tried, and it would be very inconvenient to detach so many of our army, to follow your lordship's simile, as would be required for the operation against Bulloch.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. We had better dismiss the jury at once.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. My friend, Mr. Karslake, says he does not consent to its being made a remanet.

Mr. KARSLAKE. No; I do not. All I say is, I have not my client here, and therefore cannot consent. If your lordship makes it a remanet on the ground that it cannot be tried, my consent is not necessary.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. The attorney general is dominus litis in all the Crown cases. I only want the consenting by the attorney general.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Then I believe that the case should be made a remanet. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. I am desirous of doing all homage to your power in this court. The first duty of this court is to attend to the business of the Crown. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. GEORGE TEMPLE CHAPMAN called and sworn, and examined by the SOLICITOR GENERAL:

I believe you are a lieutenant in the navy of the United States?-No; I am not. Will you have the goodness to state your profession?-I have no profession.

I think you belong to the United States ?-Yes.

And have lately come to England ?—Yes.

How long ago is it since you came to England?-Four months.

Were you at Liverpool about two months ago?—I was.

At that time had you business on which you wanted to see a person by the name of Captain Bulloch -I wished to see Captain Bulloch.

Did you go anywhere to see him?—I did.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. When did you come to Liverpool?—I came to Liverpool in the middle of March last.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Where did you go to see Captain Bulloch ?-To the office of Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool.

Was Captain Bulloch a person you were acquainted with in America ?—He was. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Will you fix a date?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Can you state with any degree of accuracy when it was that you went to the office of Messrs. Fraser, Trenholm & Co. to see Captain Bulloch ?— About the 1st of April.

Did you go there more than once for that purpose?—I did.

On the first occasion when you went there, did you see Captain Bulloch ?-No.

Whom did you see?-I saw a gentleman by the name of Prioleau.

Did you transact business with Mr. Prioleau in any character ?—No; I did not transact business with him.

Did you communicate with him?--I did.

In what character did you communicate with him?-As an American.

And on his side as what?-I led him to infer that I was a secessionist.

Did he lead you to infer that he was a secessionist?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I do not suppose that you mean to press that question.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. No; I will not.
SIR HUGH CAIRNS. One spy is enough.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Did you communicate with him as filling any character ?— No.

I suppose I am not at liberty to ask what he said, but I will ask you, did you see everything in his office; over Mr. Prioleau's desk, did you see anything in his office?— I saw an English and another flag.

What was that other flag?-What the Americans call the confederate flag.

Where did you see the flag which you say was called the confederate flag?-In his front office, where his clerks were sitting.

Did you communicate with him at all about the business upon which you had come to see Captain Bulloch ?—I did.

Did that business relate to Mr. Bulloch's private affairs?-Partially it did, and partly to the affairs of the confederate government.

Were you acquainted in the United States with a person named Clarence Yonge?— I was not.

Were you acquainted with any person who passed as his wife?—I met his wife in Liverpool.

Did she intrust you with any letters ?-Yes.

Are those letters now in court ?-That I do not know.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. How do you make them evidence?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I ask whether the person who passed as Clarence Yonge's wife intrusted the witness with any letters.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. They would not be evidence.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. We are not putting them in evidence.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. We must know in some shape or other, or have some indication from the Crown, as to what use is to be made of these letters, because this case has not been opened at all.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. We simply wish at present to identify certain papers. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. I have only got the fact that somebody's wife gave the witness some letters.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I will make the papers, or some of them, evidence by the next witness, Mr. Yonge.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. You identify certain papers.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. We only want to prove the handwriting of those letters; but, if necessary, it will be identified afterward by recalling this witness.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Are the letters here?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Yes; and the object is to prove the handwriting of the signature to those letters; some of them by this witness and some of them by another witness.

You did not see Captain Bullock upon that day, did you ?—I did not.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. How many papers are there?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Here they are, my lord. (The papers were handed to his lordship.)

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK., Were they opened when they were given to you, or sealed?-They were delivered to me open, as they are now.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Did you call again?—I did.
When you called again, did you see Captain Bulloch ?—Yes.

While you were at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s, conversing with Captain Bulloch, did you refer to these letters?—I did.

And communicated with them on the subject of them ?—Yes.

Did the person you saw there admit himself to be the person referred to in these letters-He did.

Mr. KARSLAKE. We must object to that.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that altogether. We know nothing about what the letters are.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He says the persons I saw there did what?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Communicated with him as the person referred to in those letters. That is what the witness said, and I apprehend it is perfectly good evidence. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Who is the Captain Bulloch? Was Captain Bulloch there? The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Yes; and he then communicated with Captain Bulloch on the subject of these letters, and Captain Bulloch communicated with him as the person referred to in those letters.

Mr. KARSLAKE. The last answer is, "I refer to these letters," and then there is a question objected to.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. "Is he the person mentioned or named?"

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. The person named in the letters.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It would be better to let my lord see the letters, although

I do not now tender them in evidence.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. The interview, I apprehend, to which you refer is after the seizure?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Yes.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Then this is an interview after the seizure, my lord, and it is proposed to put in evidence to this extent what passed, namely, as to whether Captain Bulloch

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. All I have got down is this: Whose wife was it?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. The person who delivered the letters to him passed as the wife of one Clarence Yonge, who will be the next witness, or one of the next witnesses that will be called.

Mr. KARSLAKE. The person who represented herself to be the wife.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. "They were delivered to me open, as they are now; when I called again, I saw Captain Bulloch." That is what I have on my note. (To the witness:) Did you say you referred to the letters?

The WITNESS. I did.

In saying that, do you refer to these papers?—Yes.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. “I referred to the papers, and the person I saw there communicated with me as the person named in those letters." That is what I have

got.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Our only object in putting the letters in, or giving any evidence about them, is to show who and what Captain Bulloch was; and as we have brought him, whatever the weight of the evidence may be, in connection with the Alexandra, I apprehend that that is a perfectly legitimate purpose.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It is the case I opened.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Yes, it was opened by my friend the attorney general, and we have given evidence accordingly.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Do you withdraw the question?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. No.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Then, certainly, my lords, I object to the question on that footing. Here is a conversation which passed after the seizure. Nothing which takes place, then, can be evidence in this cause on a record raising the issue as to what was the effect of certain things done before the seizure. The circumstance that a gentleman spoke of himself as being the same person as the person referred to in certain papers produced to him at this time cannot, I think, be any evidence upon the issue between the parties.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. None of the evidence I have got down affects any one at present, and I must say I do not see what there is to object to in it.

Mr. KARSLAKE. The question is put in this way; my friend has stated what he does it for.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. You had better wait until they go one step further; at present I see nothing to object to.

Mr. MELLISH. The question is, whether he referred to him as the person mentioned in the letters, or is he going to get a statement from Bulloch as to whether he is the person referred to.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. It does not follow that he is the person.

Mr. MELLISH. It is hearsay evidence, that can have nothing to do with the matter in question.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. If these letters are to be read or used for any purpose, then will come the question as to the admissibility of the evidence; but at present I do not see how the question is raised.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Would it not be better for my friend at the proper time to make what use he can of these letters. Then we can with intelligible minds apply ourselves to the present question and this witness may be called again.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. You may postpone your examination of this witness until you see something more of the evidence, if you wish to do that. (To the solicitor general.) Have you examined this witness sufficiently?

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. No, I have more questions to put to him.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. It will really come to this. The statement is that this witness read certain letters to a person calling himself Captain Bulloch, and he is asked, did Captain Bulloch acknowledge that he was the person referred to in the letters?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. If the objection is made to the form of the question, probably it might be put in a form not objectionable. I propose to put it thus: the witness has already stated that he received certain papers from a certain quarter; then the question is, did you see Captain Bulloch? I should then ask, were the letters then in your custody; and did you communicate on the subject? and nothing more. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. He has said that.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I am perfectly satisfied if that is so. Then we shall go on to prove the handwriting of the letters at the proper time.

Now, Mr. Chapman, while you were at that office-that is, the office of Fraser, Trenholm & Co., with Captain Bulloch, did any one else come in?-Mr. Hamilton.

Who was Mr. Hamilton; was he a person known to you before?—Yes, he was. What was he?-The son of General James Hamilton, of South Carolina, formerly governor of that State; and he was himself a lieutenant in the service of the United States until the year 1861.

And then what was he afterward ?—He resigned his command in the service of the United States, I think, early in 1861.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Do you know this yourself?-I know it by his own statement. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That will not do.

The WITNESS. I know it by the Navy Register of the United States.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Confine yourself to what you have ascertained as a spy.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. From your knowledge, are you able to say whether he was in the service of the United States at the time you saw him?-He was not.

Was he, to your knowledge, at that time in any other service?—He was.

What service?-He was in the service of

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. How do you know?-Because he told me.

You have been told already not to speak of what he told you.

The WITNESS. I will not.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. In what character did he speak to you?

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. If the object is to prove that the person was in the service of the secessionists, I think it must be proved in some other way than by his merely saying so.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. The danger is that this witness said he was himself a secessionist The WITNESS. I did not say I was a secessionist.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. No; he said, "I led him to infer that I was a secessionist." He did not say he was a secessionist.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I understand your lordship to say that I am not at liberty to ask anything that Mr. Hamilton said to this witness; therefore I bow to your lordship's decision, and I do not ask it; but we shall call him again when we want to prove the handwriting of the letters.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. We do not pledge ourselves to call him again.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. No, I think it would be convenient that he should be crossexamined now, because I do not propose to call him again for any other purpose than the sole purpose of proving the handwriting.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. For whatever purpose you call him again, they will have power to cross-examine him.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I do not pledge myself to call him again unless it may be necessary to do so.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. If you wish the cross-examination of this witness postponed altogether, I think it would be convenient that that course should be pursued until you know something more about what this evidence means; for I confess that I do not know what it means.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Without pledging my friends to recall him, I think it convenient to allow the cross-examination to be proceeded with at a later period, so that we may see what the further evidence brings forth.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It may be convenient to recall the witness Acton merely to speak to the terms in which the vessel was spoken of by Mr. Miller, senior, in the yard.

Mr. JOSEPH ACTON called and sworn, and examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL.
You told us yesterday you were employed in the building yard of Mr. Miller, of Liv-
erpool, while the Alexandra was being built or was on the stocks?—Yes, sir.
During the time you were there, did you ever hear the elder Mr. Miller speak of the
Alexandra, or describe her as a vessel of any particular class or kind?-No.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. It is understood, my lord, that our objection to this evidence is taken in the same way as the rest.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He says, I never did.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Not this witness, my lord. We were stopped when the question was put to this witness.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I want to know whether you ever heard Mr. Miller speak of the Alexandra.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He said, I never did.

You said you never heard him, did you not?-No, sir.

You never heard him speak of the vessel as having any particular character?—He spoke of her as "the boat."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. You heard him speak of her as "the boat?"-Yes.

Is that all, according to your recollection, that you heard him say of her in describing her?-Yes.

Cross-examined by SIR HUGH CAIRNS:

Had this boat any number in the yard?-I don't know that she had.