Has it never been under your notice ?-Never brought to my notice.

The Phantom, Captain Tessier commanded, did he not ?-He took her away from this port-from Liverpool.

And was he generally down at the Phantom at the time of her being built?-Both at the gunboat and at her.

I did not ask you that question ?-He was at both.

Was he frequently down at the Phantom during the time she was building?—He was, and at the gunboat.

I did not ask you that question.—I am answering you both.

I ask you about the Phantom?—If you ask me whether he was coming there, I must tell you what he was doing.

I ask you about the Phantom.

You can tell us about the other. I ask you now

about the Phantom ?-He was at both vessels.

You say you saw him give an order on board the Alexandra?-I did not see him; Mr. Welsman, not Captain Tessier.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. No, he did not say that.

Mr. KARSLAKE. He said, "I did not hear him give orders;" he "was about superintending."

I observed you dwelt particularly on the word "saw;" did you ever hear Mr. Welsman give an order?-I did.

What was it?-He told a man to knock off; he was doing something different to his wishes, and the man did knock off.

That is, he stopped work?-He stopped work and went away.

Did you see the Alexandra launched?-No.

Do you know that she was launched on the day that the Princess of Wales came to London ?—I could not tell the day; I do not know.

Was that about the time?-I do not know.

You live at Liverpool?—I do; but that is a long way from the place where this vessel is built. It is away to the north end.

You do not know much about what was going on?-When I was there I did.
How many times were you there?-Twenty times.

Will you swear that ?—Yes.

Were you ever there more than four times during the time the vessel was building ?—

Yes.

You were?-Oh yes.

Now, on this trial trip of the Emperor that you have spoken of, the second trial trip, there was a champagne luncheon ?-No.

Was there at the first trial trip?—I believe there was. I had nothing to do with the champagne. I do not drink it.

What did you drink?—I drank a little wine, I think it was.

Champagne is wine. Was this rather a merry party on the Emperor?-Not at all. A dull one?—They kept it to themselves. There was a lot by themselves. We kept to ourselves; the directors with me.

Do you recollect the second occasion ?-Perfectly well.

Who had you on board on that occasion ?-Mr. Thomas Miller. Do you want to know the whole of them?

They were not very numerous, were they?-There were only five or six of them. There were Mr. Thomas Miller, Captain Tessier, Mr. Speers, Mr. Cawkhill, Mr. Green, myself, Mr. Cairns, Mr. Taylor, and Captain McStoker.

And Mr. McIlroy ?—No.

Mr. Cawkhill is a brother director?-He is our manager, and he knows a great deal more about it than I do.

Who sent for you, or who came to you to give some information on this subject?No person.

You went of your own accord?-Do you want me to tell you, sir?

No, I do not. I want you to answer my question. Who did you first give any information to on the subject of the Alexandra?-The consul asked me.

Who did you give information to? Was it to the consul?-The consul asked me.

I do not ask you what he asked ?—I am not an informer.

Who did you first speak to about the Alexandra ?-The consul.

The American consul?—Yes.

What is his name?-Dudley.

When first did you go to him?-He sent a note for me after the 3d of March; I think it was the 4th.

When first?-After the trial trip; after the 3d of March.

Do you mean after the trial trip of the Emperor ?—Yes.

The second trial trip?-Yes, I think it was.

Did you also go to Messrs. Duncan, Squarey and Company?—-No.
Have you seen them?-I have since.

Are the solicitors to the American consul and government at Liverpool?—I do not know that.

Did you go to Mr. Hamel and be examined before him?--I did.

Was that after you had seeu the American consul and after you had seen Duncan, Squarey and Company ?--I did not tell you that I had seen Duncan, Squarey and Company. Oh! yes; I beg your pardon. Yes, it was after.

Can you give us the date of your going to see Mr. Hamel after seeing the consul and Duncan, Squarey and Company?-I could not give you the date.

Tell me about when it was?-It was after this; some time in March. I do not know; I am not certain about it; I should not like to say.

Did you see McGuire, the detective?—I saw him after I got out of the custom-house. You saw him there?-Yes.

Was he going in as you were coming out?—He was going in.

You have spoken about some blocks in the yard. Were those blocks under the Phantom?-They were under the gunboat.

Well, if you will have it so, I suppose you must. I asked you about the Phantom. The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. We have nothing to re-examine him upon, my lord.

Mr. JOHN WILSON GREEN called and sworn and examined by the QUEEN'S ADVOCATE : I believe, Mr. Green, you are a ship-builder in Liverpool?—Yes.

Of very considerable experience, I believe?—I have been for many years a shipbuilder.

Do you remember being requested to look at a vessel called the Alexandra?—I do. When was that?—A fortnight back.

For what purpose were you requested to look at her?-To make a report of my opinion as to what purpose she was built for.

Did you go and look at her?—I did.

Did you examine her?-I did.

Now, Mr. Green, will you be so good as to tell my lord and the jury what was the result of your examination, what opinion you formed?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Do not ask him that.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. All he can tell you must be the facts.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Yes, my lord.

What did you find?—On going on board?

How was she built?--I found her bulwarks differently formed from any merchant vessel, or any other vessel than a vessel of war.

Will you go on if you please with the description? Of what timber was she built? 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 POLLOCK. What was it?-It was teak.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. What was the thickness?-The inside and the outside planks 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 a 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 is under water.

What were her dimensions? How long was she?-Her length was one hundred and twenty-five and a half feet, and her breadth about twenty-one and a half feet. She was not particularly measured-not to the plumb line-but sufficiently near to obtain an approximation. She measured about two hundred and seventy-six tons, builder's

measurement.

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 bulwarksany 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. 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 for 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 to 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 sleeping rooms 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 bedroom 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 bedroom 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.

Now, I will ask you your opinion as a gentleman of science conversant with shipbuilding. I will ask you for what purpose do you conceive that the Alexandra was constructed.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that; that is simply a question which may become material for the jury.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He has stated already that it was unfit for a merchant vessel.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. I was only going to put the question as I should to an expert in these matters.

The LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. You cannot do that, because there is no expert required. He has not come here in the character of an expert.

You are a shipbuilder ?-Yes, my lord.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Therefore he is a skilled man.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. I can only take facts from him. What occurs to me as the proper course is to get from the witness facts.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. I have this already.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Then let the jury form their judgment on them. But for a man to say, In my opinion this vessel was unfitted for such and such a purpose, is usurping the functions of the jury.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. 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 ?”

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 improvements.

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 conrt. 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.