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 BAROŇ 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 Liverpool, 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.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. It is a pity we did not reserve our argument until we knew the effect of his evidence.

Mr. CLARENCE RANDOLPH YONGE called and sworn, and examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL:

Are you a native of the State of Georgia in the United States ?—I am.

Were you for some time paymaster on board the steamer Alabama?-I was.

Did you come from the port of Wilmington, in North Carolina, in a ship called the Annie Childs, to Liverpool?—I did.

In what month and year?—I think we left Wilmington in the month of March. We arrived in Liverpool on the 11th of March.

In what year ?—In 1862.

In what employment had you been previous to leaving Wilmington ?—I had been a clerk in the paymaster's office on the foreign station at Savannah, in Georgia.

Was Savannah a naval station?—Yes; it was, at that time. It never had been previously to this war.

At that time it was used as a naval station ?--Yes.

For what purpose?--For the confederate forces.

You tell us you were a clerk in the paymaster's department. Do you know, from your connection with the confederate navy, who at that time was acting as secretary to that navy? Do you mean as secretary to the confederate navy?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Yes.-S. A. Mallory. He was the secretary to the confederate navy.

Before you left Savannah, did you see there a person of the name of Bulloch ?—I did. Did he, before you left Savannah, leave that place?—No.

Did he come with you?-He came with me.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Do you mean that he came with you to Liverpool ?— He came with me as far as Queenstown, and there he left the ship and went on land; but we came over together in the same vessel.

You crossed the Atlantic together?-Yes; we did.

Do you know, from, what you saw at Savannah, whether Bulloch was in any capacity in the confederate service?—I never saw Captain Bulloch's appointment, but I know that he acted for the confederate government.

In the navy, the military, or what service?—In the navy.

He acted in the confederate navy?-In the confederate navy.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. Did he command a vessel ?—No; he did not command any vessel.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Did you act for a time as his secretary ?—I did.

And acting as his secretary and communicating with him as your principal, do you know that he did act or not with reference to the confederate navy?—I know that he acted, because I saw all the letters of the secretary of the navy to him, and his replies to those letters.

Was it part of your business to make copies of those various communications ?—I copied all of his letters; there may have been a single letter which I did not copy. But it was your business to do so?-Yes; it was my business to do so.

Do you remember to what place the letters to Mr. Mallory were addressed?-Richmond, Virginia.

That is the capital of the Confederate States?—Yes; the capital of the Confederate States.

Then, in the course of that employment, did you become acquainted not only with the handwriting of Captain Bulloch, but with the handwriting of the secretary of the navy?—I saw his signature to the letters.

Do you mean that you saw Mallory's signature?—Yes; Mallory's signature.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Will your lordship hand me those letters? (The letters were handed to the learned counsel.)

You said that Captain Bulloch acted with reference to the navy. Did he act in any particular character, as commanding a ship, or as paymaster?

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He did not command a vessel ?-He did not command a vessel, nor did he act as paymaster direct. There was no fund placed in his hand to pay to any officer.

In what character did he act, then, as long as he was at Savannah ?—I cannot say in what capacity he was acting there. He directed the movements generally of the steamer Fingal, as she was lying there ready to come out.

Was that a war steamer?-No; she was a merchant vessel.

Do you remember about what time it was when you left Savannah with Captain Bulloch ?—I do; it was on the 22d or the 23d of January; about that time.

In 1862?-We left Savannah in 1862.

I think you left in the ship, the name of which you have given us as Annie Childs ?— Not from Savannah; we went from Savannah to Wilmington.

From Savannah did you sail to Wilmington ?-No; we went by land.

Did you there take ship?-We left Wilmington in the ship.
In the Annie Childs ?—Yes.

You have told us about when you arrived in Liverpool; were there any passengers that you remember in particular on board besides yourself and Captain Bulloch ?— There were three others.

Who were they?-John Low, Eugene Maffit, and Edward M. Anderson.

Can you tell us how the Mr. Low that you have mentioned was employed, whether he was in any service ?-He had received an appointment from the confederate navy. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. Do you know what appointment he had received ?—Yes, I know. How do you know?-By having his orders in my possession.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That will not do.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. What do you mean by orders ?-Orders from the secretary of the navy, and also a copy of his appointment.

While you were secretary to Captain Bulloch, at Savannah, had you communications with Mr. Low ?-Daily.

At the office ?-Not at the office. I used to see him on board of the vessel.

What vessel ?—The steamer Fingal; the vessel he must have come out in. Captain Bulloch had no command at Savannah whatever.

The Fingal was a vessel Captain Bulloch was endeavoring to get out?-Captain Anderson was in command of the vessel; Captain Bulloch's orders were to return to Liverpool.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. What did you know about Captain Bulloch's orders?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Did you hear Captain Bulloch give orders with reference to this ship. He had the principal direction of this vessel.

Did you hear him give orders?-To Captain Anderson?

Yes.-Yes.

And to Low ?-Not to Low.

What orders or directions, if any, did you hear Captain Bulloch give to Captain Anderson?

Sir HUGH CAIRNS. I object to that question; we must not have statements made by Captain Bulloch with respect to some ship called the Fingal, and some person called Anderson, as to which ship and which person we have not heard anything yet which makes their presence relevant to this inquiry.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I will show that Captain Bulloch was in Savannah in an official character employed by the confederate government, by the witness who was his secretary, and must know.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. This is a matter for cross-examination.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. He must know it.

When he was at Savannah, and you were acting as his secretary, did you hear him give any orders to Low with reference to his ship there?-Not with regard to any ship. Do you know how Low is employed?—He is now a lieutenant on board the confederate steamer Alabama.

Do you know it from having seen him there?—Yes; I know it from having seen him there.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. On board the Alabama ?—Yes.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. He is now lieutenant on board the Alabama ?—Yes. When did you see Low on board the Alabama ?--I left him on the Alabama on the 25th January last.

In this year?--Yes; in this year.

I will ask you at once the question; you were on board the Alabama?—Yes.

Was that vessel at the time you were on board of her a vessel of war, sailing the flag: of the Confederate States?-She was, and she sailed under a good many flags. Was she commanded by an officer in the confederate navy?—Yes.

Captain Semmes ?-Captain Raphael Semies.

Possibly; I do not know it so; but did you ever know Lieutenant Low acting in any naval and military capacity before you saw him on the Alabama ?-I know that he went out in the Oreto to Nassau, and I have seen him when he was a volunteer in the land service.

Is that since the war ?-Since the war.

In what service-which of the two services?-In the confederate service.

You have known him serving as a lancer in that service?—Yes; I have known him: in the confederate service.

There is another person whose name you mentioned as having come to Liverpool in the Annie Childs-Mr. Maffit; had you known a Mr. Maffit before you commenced the voyage from Wilmington to Liverpool?—I did.

Had you or had you not known him as serving in any fleet or army on either of the sides at war?—Yes, I have known him in both; that is, acting as a volunteer in one of the batteries at the fight at Port Royal.

Do I understand you to say that he was in both services ?—At one time he was serving as a volunteer in the land service.

5 A C—VOL. V