the word "and," is used, and in that respect exactly the same as the general structure of our seventh section upon the charge of being concerned-which is one of the charges in this information-in the fitting out, such charge is established by showing the intent, and a partial construction only, and not a complete construction or arming of the vessel. That applies to one of the objections taken by my learned friend Sir Hugh Cairns in this case, that the vessel is not a complete vessel, and to his argument that, in order that it should be brought within any one of the limbs of this section, it ought to be a completed vessel. To which, as I understand his argument, there should be superadded some equipment or fitting or arming which, he contended besides, was indispensable to make the offense in any sense a complete offense.

Gentlemen, I think I have now come to the last of the legal discussions invited and raised by my learned friend; and upon this authority I would submit to you that the authority also agrees with the reasonable construction. Two points are established: first, that arming is not necessary in order to constitute one of the violations of the statute, namely, the being concerned in, or probably endeavoring, but at all events being concerned in, the equipping, furnishing, or fitting out; and the next, that it is not in any view of the section necessary that the vessel with reference to which the forfeiture is sought to be affirmed should at the time of seizure be a completed vessel, and have then superadded some armament or fitting of war.

Gentlemen, I am happy now to state that what I shall have further to add will be mainly, if not exclusively, upon matters within your province, and which you will have to decide under the ruling of my lord the chief baron, namely, upon matters of fact.

My learned friend said, and I do not at all demur to that way of looking at the case, that there would be two questions for your consideration. The first is, Was the ship equipped and if so, Was the vessel fitted out for a warlike or for a mercantile purpose? That is the first question. My learned friend himself, in dealing with the question, commented on the evidence of three witnesses, Captain Inglefield, Mr. Green, and Mr. Black, called on behalf of the Crown to show what was the structure, the strength, and the adaptation-I do not say the adaptability, but the adaptation-of the vessel as far as the building had gone. Now I submit to you that this part of the case, as the evidence stands, is conclusively proved. The evidence of Captain Inglefield alone would have sufficed to make out that part of the case, and I should not have dreamt of attempting even to fortify that evidence by any other witness, except that in the conduct of cases of this description one cannot clearly anticipate on what points, even on points which may appear to one side or the other to be extremely clear and incontrovertible-one can never with certainty conclude that on a point opposing evidence will not be adduced. As, however, no opposing evidence has been produced, and as Mr. Green and Mr. Black support by their evidence distinctly the evidence of Captain Inglefield, I am content to leave this part of the case on the evidence of that gentleman.

Gentlemen, my learned friend has been very eloquent with respect to some of the other witnesses called on the part of the Crown, and has applied very harsh terms of vituperation. He could not of course adopt such a course with reference to a gentleman like Captain Inglefield, whom we shall both regard as an intelligent, competent, and honorable witness upon the matter on which he came to speak. Now, then, what did he say? Because, without treating it as a matter of science, or as the opinion of an expert, I would very shortly recall your recollection to the facts connected with the vessel, which were spoken to by Captain Inglefield. He told you her burden, which would be small for a man-of-war, but of course quite sufficient for a war vessel of the smaller class; he told you she was built of teak, and she was very strongly built, and he showed that by reference to the thickness and strength of the various parts of the vessel. He told you that her bulwarks were strong and low; he told you that she was not fitted for a commercial ship, and I am glad to have some admission from my learned friend, or from his clients through him, for my learned friend agrees that she was not adapted for commercial purposes. She wanted of course that which is essential to a mercantile ship, a hold in which to carry goods. She had what may be called a hold, if you please; that is to say, she had space in her lower part for the carriage of stores, but not for the carriage of merchandise; that my learned friend admits, but he laid hold of an expression which Captain Inglefield used. Captain Inglefield being the witness of truth, would not of course give you a partial account, but if he comes before you to state anything he would state the whole truth, and he stated that this vessel was altogether unfit, which leads you to the inference that she never was intended, for mercantile purposes; she was fit for a war ship or a yacht.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. His experience is, this might be used as a yacht, and easily convertible into a vessel of war.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Yes, my lord; that is to say, by armament and additions. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. No more than that; there were no guns or preparations for guns; she is without any of those appurtenances which indicate an intention of guns being put on board.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Your lordship is aware that she was not fit for any actual use at sea, either as a vessel of war or as a mercantile vessel, at that time. I think she had had a propeller attached; her masts were in; they had begun her rigging, but she was evidently in an incomplete state; therefore, when Captain Inglefield speaks of her capability or adaptation, he means this, and such is the fact, that supposing the persons who had built that ship up to that moment had intended from the beginning that she should be made a man-of-war, as far as the construction of the vessel had gone they would have done precisely what they have done. So if they had intended her for a yacht, that which was done would have been done, and the reason of that is obvious. The great distinction between a war ship and a mercantile ship is, that the one is adapted to carry men and arms and military and naval stores, and the other is adapted to carry ordinary merchandise as cargo. But there is this in common between a yacht and a man-of-war, that a yacht is no more designed or adapted to the carriage of cargo or merchandise than is a ship of war. It is common to a yacht and to a ship of war, that the arrangement of stowage should be adapted to the carriage of men and to the carriage of provisions and munitions which they may desire to use; but the Alexandra was not adapted and fitted, and could not be adapted to mercantile uses, because you cannot change such a material condition in a ship and in her construction as in the room provided for stowage. If you build your vessel with stowage only sufficient for the carriage of such commodities or materials as might be carried on a ship of war or a yacht, you cannot, without making the ship over again, give her a capacity for carrying a mercantile cargo. Then it is not suggested-the ingenuity of my learned friend did not suggest to him, nor, apparently, have the instructions of his clients suggested to him-that there ever had been in contemplation a yacht from the beginning to the end of the construction, so far as it had gone, of the Alexandra. I think, therefore, we may put "yacht" out of consideration. Then, if we may put "yacht" out of consideration, we have the possibility of a peaceful destination absolutely negatived, and we have nothing left but the destination, as far as that is to be conjectured from the structure, character, and strength of the vessel; we have no destination left but a warlike destination. Therefore, I start with that part of the case. Then I say, with respect to the witnesses, Mr. Green and Mr. Black, my learned friend made no very pertinent observations. He said Mr. Green had not made a ship for many years, and was of opinion, as many persons at his time of life are, that modern inventions were not of any great value; he was one of the old school, to whom I do not know that my learned friend should particularly object; all that he objected to was that he was a tory in ship-building. There is no doubt that he was a very competent witness, and, as regards practical workmanship, probably his skill and experience are equal to those of Captain Inglefield, he taking a larger view of the matter.

I therefore, without saying more on that subject as to the evidence, submit to you with every confidence in the world, that that part of the case, at all events, has been made out. My learned friend alluded, speaking of the adaptability of a ship, to an occurrence which took place some years ago, which we all recollect, and which led to an ingenious ship-builder, Mr. Laird, proposing to arm all the tug-boats in the Mersey. Let me make this remark on a tug-boat: a tug-boat is no more intended to carry cargo than a ship of war or a yacht. In the proposal of Mr. Laird, who is a sanguine person, he proposed only to convert for future use in warlike operations, tug-boats, which, as far as the main conditions of difference between merchant ships and ships of war are concerned, would belong by their construction to the war vessels, and not to the mercantile marine.

Gentlemen, that brings us to the great question in the case with which my learned friend next dealt on the evidence. I mean the question of intent, because I have stated and admitted throughout that unless you are satisfied upon the evidence produced on the part of the Crown that there did exist the intent-and I will very much adopt the view put forward by my learned friend as to the kind of person, with reference to the ship, by whom such intent must be entertained to fulfill the description of the intent; I shall come to that in a moment-but unless I satisfy you that the intent that the vessel should be employed by the Confederate States is made out, and an intent existing before the seizure and during the construction of the vessel, I have stated throughout, and I repeat, that the information fails.

Now, then, gentlemen, let us see what the evidence is as regards the intent. My learned friend, in speaking of the intent, could not, of course, avoid some allusion to that remarkable piece of evidence to which I called your attention in the earliest part of my observations. My learned friend could not fail to allude to the statement of Mr. Da Costa as to what Mr. Miller said, and by way of derogating from the effect or weight of that evidence, my learned friend addressed to you arguments and observations which I think were addressed to the learned judge in the argument in favor of the exclusion of that statement of Da Costa, and which, at all events, if they were not so addressed, ought to have been and they more properly belonged-indeed they exclusively belonged to the consideration of whether that evidence ought to be received; but they do not in any degree affect the weight and the operation of the evidence when it is lawfully

before you. Now, he has spoken disparagingly of Mr. Miller, who, I should think, was an excellent acquaintance and friend of my learned friend's clients, Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company. The elder Mr. Miller, I am informed, and I suppose that will not be controverted, is a respectable gentleman, in a considerable way of business. He sat facing me. I do not know whether he is in court now. It is immaterial, but he certainly sat facing me during a considerable portion of yesterday.

LORD CHIEF BARON. Do you personally know him, Mr. Attorney General? because that is a very unusual statement to make to a jury, unless you are giving evidence. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I am not giving evidence, my lord.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. It is a piece of evidence which is quite new to me.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It certainly was stated to me. I thought it would be a notorious matter. However, it will be taken that I should not state it, because I am not desirous of going into the box to be cross-examined by my learned friend. I ask you, therefore, gentlemen, to dismiss that entirely from your minds. But, however, that is immaterial.

LORD CHIEF BARRON. You may take it for granted that he was either here or within call.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I think it would be quite enough for me to say that Mr. Miller is alive and well and able to travel. He is in a condition, therefore, to be affected by what we call a subpoena, and he either was here or was not. Now, after the evidence which Da Costa had given, it might be suggested that they could not tell that Da Costa would be examined. Da Costa was examined early in the course of yesterday. There are abundant means of communicating with Liverpool by telegraph. Mr. Miller might have been telegraphed to to come off by the mail train last night, and might have been examined this morning; therefore, if Mr. Miller has not been brought up after the parties concerned were aware of the evidence given by Da Costa, the conclusion is they really do not disbelieve Da Costa, and they have not thought it worth their while to ask Mr. Miller whether he can contradict him. If, as the probability is, as the Lord Chief Baron has stated, Mr. Miller, as being a person very much concerned in these matters, was within hail, then it is to be fairly inferred that those who act for the defendants in this case have communicated with Mr. Miller, and that Mr. Miller has not been put forward, simply for this excellent reason, that if he had been put forward he would not have contradicted the evidence of Da Costa; not contradicting it, he would confirm it, and we should probably have obtained evidence from the other side in support of the information.

Now, gentlemen, what was the statement of Mr. Miller? because it is a very important statement, and I ask you throughout your consideration of the evidence for the Crown to bear it in mind, as direct and important evidence upon a matter like intent, which is seldom capable of conclusive proof, intent being, strictly speaking, that which is in the mind of a person. On the subject of intent Mr. Miller was plain and outspoken. Well, but Mr. Miller was not reticent in these matters. He met his friend, the crimp, and he unbosomed himself to him. I shall have to comment on the observations of my learned friend as to the character and position of my witnesses. I do not think there is anything discreditable in the character or position of Da Costa when he knows what the questions raised by the Crown with regard to the Alexandra were. I say there was nothing discreditable or to the disgrace of Mr. Da Costa that he should make that communication to those who would be able to avail themselves of it in a proper way and at a proper time; at all events, he has done so, and he is now to be taken as a witness of truth. What does he say? He says that the elder Mr. Miller told him that the vessel was intended for a gun-boat. Now, apart from any evidence of this kind, I think you must have long ceased to entertain any doubt upon that matter. Gun-boat is a name for the kind of vessel of war to which I suppose, from her size, she would be particularly adapted, and therefore this does not rest at all exclusively on the statement of Mr. Miller. And then he added, We-I must take it, and I do adopt it, that the younger Mr. Miller is no partner of his father's, but I think it is very likely they may be spoken of by strangers and by the world as Miller and Son; at all events the expression is in the plural-We and Fawcett, Preston and Company have jointly undertaken to build her for Frazer, Trenholm and Company for the confederates. Then, I think, he went on to say that Mr. Miller added (what we certainly have proved without Mr. Miller) that Messrs. Frazier, Trenholm and Company are agents for the confederate government. Now, gentlemen, this is very material evidence, and permit me to repeat, that if, bearing in mind the evidence for the Crown, apart from and independent of this, as also the nature of the matter to be proved, intent, you find such evidence even pointing probably to the conclusion which this evidence shows, then I ask you to add to all the other proofs this statement of Mr. Miller; and I further ask you, can you reasonably doubt that the purpose and intent was that the vessel should be completed as a vessel of war, and should then pass into the service and the employment of the government of the Confederate States? That, at all events, is the statement of Mr. Miller of the purpose for which he made it. Permit me to repeat, for it is very important, you cannot doubt for one moment that Da Costa has not invented

this; and, moreover, that Da Costa has given a correct version of the words used by Mr. Miller is really incontrovertible, and it appears to me to throw very great light on the whole of this case, and entirely to deprive the arguments of my learned friend of any weight to the effect that we were calling on his clients to go into the box and exculpate themselves; whereas we have made, as the evidence stands, a strong case. I do not say the absence of intent in the nature of things would not be consistent with every statement short of the statement of Mr. Miller; but then if you have a case in any form of proceeding, either a penal proceeding with respect to property like this, or a proceeding at a criminal bar, in which the evidence without more would lead to the conclusion that the allegation was sustained, and especially if it be in the power of the person charged to vary the case, it is undoubtedly his business to avail himself of his opportunity, and not to leave the matter in any kind of obscurity or doubt. So much for Mr. Miller. My learned friend said Mr. Miller was the builder, but he seems to have been in very friendly and intimate connection with Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, as well as with persons who appear to have been mixed up in this common interest.

Then my learned friend said there was no secrecy in the building of this ship. I do not suppose there was; it was built in an open builders' yard; and with reference to the machinery, it was constructed on the premises of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company. I do not suggest that the operation was not carried on in the usual way; and probably it did not occur to this gentleman that there was any necessity for concealment; but although that might be of weight if the case was left, as my learned friend has supposed, in the weak and meager way in which my learned friend has presented it to you, I think when we take into consideration the evidence which we have laid before you, there can be no doubt that the observation loses its weight.

Then my learned friend came to the matter of the guns. You would understand from the question put to the witness from the workshop of Messrs. Fawcett and Company that it was supposed at least that some connection would be traced between the Alexandra and certain guns. Now I am bound to admit that, strictly speaking, we failed in tracing that connection. But there is an observation which I think I am entitled to make on that, and which impairs very much the force of my learned friend's observations as to the failure of the case on the part of the Crown as compared with the way in which it was expected to stand in that respect. Not only have the defendants done that which of course I admit they were perfectly entitled to do; not only have they not thought fit to give any evidence on the subject on which Mr. Miller spoke so distinctly, but they did another thing, which is a matter in the conduct of a defense which a jury witnesses and to which they are entitled to attach some weight. And how stands the case with reference to the guns? It appeared from the statement of the witness, a witness of course called from the premises of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, a witness of the name of Hodgson, that there were guns. I have no right to say now that those guns were intended for the Alexandra; but he described three guns as being at the premises of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, a large gun and two smaller guns. I have mistaken the witness-I was upon the evidence really of Joseph Carter. Joseph Carter was a carpenter-he would therefore have no business, properly speaking, with guns, rifled or unrifled-I mean with the guns themselves; but you cannot use the gun without a gun-carriage, and it was the duty of Carter, as a carpenter, to make the gun-carriages for the guns constructed at the workshops of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, and he tells you that he was at work at certain guns at the same time at which the arrangement and construction of the machinery for the Alexandra was going on. This no doubt was left open, because he spoke of the machinery he saw in progress in the yard or the workshop of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company. He was employed in the construction of the gun-carriages, and it appeared that the Alexandra (I suppose it is found convenient, I make no imputation on that, probably it is found convenient in such a case to use a number instead of a name) was called No. 2209.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That was the machine that was called 2209, not the Alexandra. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. So was the ship. "Messrs. Fawcett and Company were making machinery for a propeller boat named 2209.”

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I am sorry you have taken a wrong note.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. There is the note of my learned friend, Mr. Jones, which is to the same effect as mine.

LORD CHIEF BARON. He says, "I never heard the vessel called other than 2209.” The ATTORNEY GENERAL. He says it was 2209.

LORD CHIEF BARON. He says, “I did not go on board the Alexandra; it was called with us 2209."

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That is the machinery.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. The number was attached to the ship, but in applying the same number to the guns

LORD CHIEF BARON. "A gun-carriage numbered 2209." Each gun-carriage had a separate number. The number on the carriage was the same as the number on the guns.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Here is the literal quotation from the short-hand writer's notes.

LORD CHIEF BARON. "They were separate jobs, and not one job." And then he says, "I could not say that they were for the same vessel."

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Distinctly upon the short-hand writer's note the witness stated, which agrees with our note, that the vessel was called 2209.

LORD CHIEF BARON. I have read my note to that effect.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Of course, my lord, that is conclusive.

LORD CHIEF BARON. "I know I never heard the vessel called other than the 2209." I do not want the short-hand writer's note for that.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I know one of the witnesses states that he used to take various things by direction to 2209, and that those things he left on the Alexandra, so that it is clear and beyond doubt, and my lord's note is conclusive upon it. It is in your recollection also, no doubt, that the Alexandra was known in the machine shop of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company by the number 2209. Now, these three guns were also being constructed, or the gun-carriages, and it would be important, if it could be done, to show that the same number was used with reference to the gun-carriages. I asked the question, and the witness was not able to say, one way or the other, what number it was. He said that two of the three guns had certain numbers, as he thought, but he did not appear to have any distinct recollection, one way or other, what was the number on the larger gun. But he said this, he said it is the course of business in the workshop of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company that drawings are given out to the workmen who have to construct gun-carriages, and on the face of those drawings is written the number which is attached to the gun-carriage. Now, gentlemen, a number being attached to the vessel, of course it is probable-I do not say how the fact might turn out to be-that the same or corresponding number might be attached to the gun-carriage. In order, therefore, to see how it was, we asked the question; we could not be exactly informed, because the witness, as a matter of memory, told us he could not recollect.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. He says there was no number on the large gun. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. The witness, as my lord says, did state the numbers as he thought he recollected them, 2004 and 2005 on the small guns.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. And none on the large one.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Quite so, my lord. Then, desiring to obtain information on that, he was asked whether numbers were put on the drawings of the gun-carriages. He said "yes," and of course added that the drawings in this case, after he had completed his work, were left, so that they would be properly and naturally in the hands of Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company. I called for the production of the drawings. The defendands did that which, I repeat, they were perfectly entitled to do. They are here, and they are entitled upon the act of Parliament to put the Crown to strict proof of everything which it is incumbent on the Crown to produce.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. We did not refuse to produce them. We said we had no notice; we referred to the notice to produce. The notice to produce was the drawings for the gun-carriages for the Alexandra. I said there was none.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. There was no notice for the drawings of No. 2209. SIR HUGH CAIRNS. No, my lord.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I asked for it.

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. My note is this: "Drawings called for, not produced; notice admitted. We produce the drawings of the Alexandra."

Mr. MELLISH. My learned friend called for the drawings of the Alexandra.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I did not. I called for the drawings of the gun-carriage. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. If you meant 2209, there was no notice to produce that.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Surely there must be some terms in the notice which was given.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. This is it, "All drawings," &c. (The learned counsel read the notice to produce.)

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. "Of, for, and in relation to." I should have thought that if there was an honest intention to assist in the administration of justice

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. That is not the question; the question is whether you have given the notice or not.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. However, it appears we asked for this. I was not in court when this particular point was raised about the notice to produce. I was examining the witness. He said he left the drawings with Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company, and the answer at the moment

LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. You examined Carter.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. I said we produce no drawings; you have given no notice to produce.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I must take it that we have not put ourselves in the position to insist on the production of this, and indeed if we had done so they still might