Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-ninth Congress

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward

No. 830.]

Legation of the United States, London, December 8, 1864.

Sir: I transmit herewith a copy of the London Times containing a report of the proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench in the case of the Crown against Mr. Rumble. it will be seen that the matter went off, for the moment, on a side issue. An adjournment was made to enable the defendant to fortify himself against unexpected evidence. There is no reasonable doubt of his guilt, but it is equally certain that great efforts will be made to get him clear.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Hon. William H. Seward Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[From the London Times of December 6, 1864. ]

[Untitled]

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, Westminster, December 5.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury.)

THE CASE OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK.

THE QUEEN VS. RUMBLE.

This was an indictment, under the foreign enlistment act, against an officer in her Majesty’s dock-yard at Sheerness, for assisting in the manning and equipment of a vessel-of-war, with intent that she should be engaged in the service of the Confederate States. The case had arisen thus: In November last year a war-steamer, called the Scylla, a gunboat of 500 tons, carrying six guns, was sold by the admiralty at Sheerness. Soon afterwards she was found to have got into the hands of persons who were fitting her out for the confederates; and, in fact, she was taken over to Calais, and there hoisted the confederate flag, and was called the Rappahannock. An inquiry before the magistrates was thereupon instituted by the government, which was conducted by Mr. W. V. Harcourt, and the result was, that in January last the defendant was committed for trial on charges under the foreign enlistment act: “That he did unlawfully hire, retain, engage, and procure, and attempt and endeavor to hire, retain, engage, and procure divers persons to enlist and enter and engage to enlist and serve and be employed in the service of and for and in aid of certain foreign States, provinces, and people, commonly called the Confederate States of America, and of the persons assuming to exercise the powers of government in and over the said States, &c., as sailors and otherwise in sea-service for, under, and in aid of the said foreign States, &c, and the persons assuming to exercise powers of government in and over the said States, &c., and to go and agree to go. and embark from the port of Sheerness for the purpose and with the intent to be enlisted, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided.” And, further, that he did unlawfully, and without the leave and license of her Majesty, equip, furnish, and fit out, and knowingly aid and assist, and was concerned in the equipment, furnishing, and fitting out of a certain ship called the Victor, otherwise called the Scylla, otherwise-called the Rappahannock, with the intent and in order that the ship should be employed in the service of certain foreign States, provinces, and people, commonly called the Confederate States of America, and of the persons assuming to exercise powers of government over the said States, provinces, &c., and with intent to cruise and commit hostilities against the United States of America and the subjects and citizens of the said United States, with whom her Majesty was not then and is not now at war, contrary to the statuts in such case made and provided. The charges thus made, it will be seen, involved some of the questions raised in the case of the Alexandra as to equipment, and also other questions under the provisions in the statute relating to enlistment; and through the charges as thus stated by the magistrates appear short and simple enough, they were, necessarily, for the purposes of indictment, expanded into a great number of counts, to hit the various words of the statute under each head of charge. To understand the charges against the defendant and the indictment it is necessary to know the enactments of the statute. The statute (59th George III, chap. 69) is entitled “An act to prevent the enlisting or engaging of his Majesty’s subjects to serve in, a foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping in his Majesty’s dominions vessels for warlike purposes, without his Majesty’s license;” and the preamble recites that “the enlistment, &c., or equipping, &c., for warlike operations in or against the dominions of a foreign state may be prejudicial, and tend to endanger the peace and welfare of the kingdom;” and then the second section provides that “if any natural-born subject of his Majesty, without the leave and license of his Majesty, shall enlist or enter himself to enlist, or shall agree io enlist, &c., to serve as a soldier, or to be employed, or shall serve in any warlike operation., in the service of or for or under or in aid of any foreign prince, state, &G.; or accept or agree to take or accept any commission, warrant, or appointment as an officer, or shall enlist or enter himself, or shall agree to enlist or enter himself, to serve as a sailor or marine, or to be employed or engaged, or shall serve in or on board any ship or vessel-of-war, or in or on board any ship or vessel used or fitted out, or equipped, or intended to be used for any warlike purpose, in the service of or for or under or in aid of any foreign-power, prince, state, &c., or engage, contract, or agree to go, or shall go, to any foreign state, country, &c, with an intent or in order to enlist or enter himself to serve, or with intent to serve, in any warlike or military operation whatever, whether by land or sea, in the service of or for or under or in aid of any foreign prince, state, &c, or as an officer or a. soldier, or in any other military capacity, or as an officer, or sailor, or marine, in any such ship or vessel as aforesaid, although no enlisting money, or pay, or reward shall have been or shall be in any or either of the eases aforesaid actually paid to or received by him, or by any person to or for his use or benefit; or if any person whatever within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or any part of his Majesty’s dominions elsewhere, &c., shall hire, retain, engage, or procure, or shall attempt or endeavor to hire, retain, engage, or procure any person or persons whatever to enlist, or enter, or engage to enlist, or to serve or to be employed in any such service or employment as aforesaid as an officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, either in land or sea service, for or under or in aid of any foreign prince, state, &.C., or to go or to agree to go or embark from any part of his Majesty’s dominions, for the purpose or with intent to be enlisted, entered, engaged, or employed as aforesaid, whether any enlisting money, pay, or reward shall have been or shall be actually given or received or not—in any or either of such cases every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,” &c. Then comes the celebrated section 7 as to equipment of vessels :

“That if any person within any part of the United Kingdom, or in any part of his Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas, shall, without the leave and license of his Majesty for that purpose first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or attempt or endeavor to equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out, or armed, or shall knowingly aid, assist, or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, &c, or shall within the United Kingdom or any of his Majesty’s dominions, &c., issue or deliver any commission for any ship or vessel to the intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,” &c, and every such ship or vessel, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all the materials, arms, ammunition and stores which may belong to or be on board of any such ship or vessel, shall be forfeited.”

Such are the principal provisions of the statute on the subject. It is to be observed that, as the vessel got safely away, it was impossible to take proceedings, as in the case of the Alexandra, for a forfeiture. Such proceedings would have been, as in that case, in the court of exchequer. The present proceedings were on the penal part of the above enactments, which not only entail a forfeiture, but also render the parties concerned punishable for a mis demeanor. Therefore, the proceeding is by way of indictment and in this court. The indictment was one of enormous length, comprising 166 counts, of which it may suffice to give a brief but careful analysis. In a general way, it may be said to be divided under two leads—the first and larger portion relating to the enlistment of men; the second, as to the equipment of the vessel. The general analysis is this: The first ten counts charge the defendant with an offence under the second section, in hiring, &c., one Maloney. The 110 following counts charge him with a similar offence with reference to the ten other men. The next 16 counts charge him under the same section with counselling and procuring four of the men to enlist and enter themselves to be employed in the confederate service. The remaining seven counts charge him under the seventh section with equipping, furnishing, or fitting out the vessel, or with attempting to equip, fit out, or furnish her. This general analysis, however, will hardly suffice to enable the reader to follow the case without a more particular analysis. The first six counts charged that the defendant did procure, &c., one Maloney to enlist, &c, and to engage to enlist, &c., and to go and embark with intent to be enlisted, &c., (varying the counts to meet the words of the statute,) “as a sailor on sea service” in aid of the Confederate States. The next four counts, from the seventh to the tenth, charge that the defendant did procure, &c, Maloney to be employed, &c., in warlike operations by sea in aid of the Confederate States. Then follow ten sets of similar counts, ( 11 to 124,) each set the same as the first ten, charging that the defendant did procure, &c., to be enlisted either “asa sailor in sea service,” or in warlike operations by sea, one of ten other men, named Frith, Ghino, Hurford, Brooks, Bailey, Goode, Newton, Spendiff, Thompson, Hall, and Shaw. These are the counts under the statute—the foreign enlistment act itself. Then come four sets of counts, each of four counts, (121 to 136, inclusive, ) which charge a misdemeanor at common law, in counselling four of these men—Brooks, Maloney, Goode, and Newton—to enlist and serve. Each of these sets of counts charges that the defendant did counsel and procure (one Brooks, &c.) a natural-born subject. &c., without the leave or license of her Majesty, to enlist, &c., and to serve, &c., “on board a certain ship-of-war intended to be used for warlike purposes” in aid of the Confederate States. Then came several sets of counts (137 to 166) upon the equipment clauses of the statute. The first set charge that the defendant, without leave or license, did equip, furnish, and fit out a certain ship with intent that the same ship should be employed in the service of the Confederate States, with intent to commit hostilities against the United States; and one count (139) charges that he did “equip, furnish, and fit out” a vessel with intent to commit hostilities against the United States. The next set (140 to 148) are the same as the last three, except that they charged that the defendant “did attempt and endeavor to equip” or “furnish” or “fit out”—one of the three counts charging an attempt to “equip,” a second an attempt to “furnish,” and a third an attempt to “fit out.” Then follow a set of counts (149 to 157) the same as the last nine, (i . e., as 139 to 148,) except that they allege that the defendant did procure to be “equipped” or “to be furnished” or “to be fitted out,” &c. The last set of counts (158 to 166) are the same as the nine preceding, except in alleging that the defendant “did aid and assist and was concerned in the equipping” or “the furnishing” or “fitting out” of a vessel with intent that the same should be employed in the service of the Confederate States, or with intent to commit hostilities against the United States. Such is the analysis of the numerous counts in the indictment. It only remains to give the first count as a specimen of their form and frame. It charges that the defendant, on the 24th of November, 1863, within the United Kingdom, at Sheerness, in the county of Kent, unlawfully and wilfully did hire, retain, engage, and procure one Maloney to enlist as a sailor in sea service (or “to go and embark from that port with intent to be enlisted,” &c.) for, under, and in aid of certain persons assuming to exercise the powers of government in a certain foreign country— that is to say, for, under, and in aid of the Confederate States of America. It will be observed that the matter occurred at Sheerness, and the offences are said to have been committed there, and ordinarily the indictment would have been preferred and the trial had at the assizes for the county of Kent; but the foreign enlistment act expressly provides that the indictment may be preferred in the Court of King’s Bench, and, on account of the importance of the question which it involves, it was accordingly so preferred, and the bill or indictment was found or presented by a grand jury of Middlesex in last term—that is, in the month of June. The grand jury were charged by the senior puisne judge of this court, Mr. Justice Crompton, and we fully reported his charge at the time. The grand jury having found the bill of indictment, the defendant pleaded “not guilty,” and the case was set down for trial Of course it could only be set down in its order, and in that order it now came on for trial.

The solicitor general, Mr. Lush, Queen’s counsel, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. W. V. Harcourt appeared on the part of the Crown; Mr. Bovili, Queen’s counsel, Mr. Karslake, Queen’s counsel, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Macnamara, and Mr. Gifford were for the defendant.

On the jury being sworn, Mr. Harcourt briefly opened the case, stating that it was an indictment under the foreign enlistment act, to which the defendant had pleaded “Not guilty.”

Mr. Bovili suggested that the witnesses be out of court.

The solicitor general at once assented, suggesting one or two exceptions, to which the learned counsel at once assented. The solicitor general then proceeded to state the case to the jury. This, he said, is a prosecution under the foreign enlistment act—a statute passed, as the preamble states, for the better preservation of the peace of the country, and therefore a statute of great importance to the welfare of the kingdom. Gentlemen, when I tell you that the defendant was an officer in her Majesty’s service as inspector of floating machinery at Sheerness you will readily believe, I am sure, that this prosecution has been instituted by the government with much pain and regret. But when you hear the nature of the case, and when you hear the evidence, you will see that the government had no choice, but that it was their imperative duty to submit this case to the consideration of a jury. Gentlemen, I will first call your attention to the provisions of the statute, and then I will endeavor to make a short but succinct statement of the facts of the case. The learned solicitor general then cited the statute at length, beginning with its title and preamble, and then the various provisions as above set forth. These he commented upon as he read them. He observed that the legislature had undoubtedly used a great number of words, and it might be a question whether the multiplicity of words tended rather to elucidate or to obscure the meaning. But, at all events, it is abundantly obvious that it was intended to prohibit the mischief against which the act was directed, as appears by its title and preamble—that is, any of the Queen’s subjects being engaged in military service or warlike operations under any foreign state or power. Now, gentlemen, I will state—not argue—the view which the Crown take upon the construction of the statute. Their view is shortly this: that any equipment of a vessel with the prohibited intent is the offence created by the statute; that is, in other words, that it is not necessary that the equipment should be itself of a warlike character, but that if any person equips or aids in the equipment of a vessel by providing her with sails or rigging, or motive power, engines, or boilers; in fact, if he assists in any equipment whatever, he is guilty of an offence under the statute, provided always that it be proved that any equipment which he was a party to was made with the intent that the vessel should be enabled to cruise and commit hostilities against some country at amity with our Queen. That, gentlemen, is the view which the Crown takes of this statute. Now, gentlemen, upon the breaking out of the war a proclamation was issued by the Queen, in which it was declared that her subjects, upon pain of her displeasure, were not to infringe the provisions of the statute. Gentlemen, with that proclamation every subject of her Majesty must be presumed to have been acquainted, but certainly no officer of the Queen could pretend to be ignorant of it. And now, gentlemen, I will proceed to a short statement of the facts. In 3857 there was a screw gunboat built for the Crown, called the Victor. She carried six guns, was about 350 horse-power, and her tonnage was about 500 tons. She was employed for some time in the navy, but being found not very available for the government service, the admiralty accepted an offer from Messrs. Gordon, Coleman & Co., shipowners in London, to sell her to them. The offer was accepted in November last year, and she was sold for £9,000. On the 6th of November Messrs. Coleman were registered as the owners of the vessel, although it would appear by subsequent statements of Mr. Rumble that Messrs. Coleman were not the real owners, and that the real owner was a Mr. Zachary Pearson. The vessel was delivered to the purchasers on the 10th of November. Before she was delivered the warlike fittings were taken out, and she was sold without masts, or sails, or rigging. After slight repairs she was delivered to the purchasers, and taken out of the dock-yard and anchored in the Thames. That was on the 10th of November, and a new name, that of the Scylla was then given to her. It was given out that she was destined for a voyage to China. Preparations for a voyage were proceeded with rapidly. The parts of her most defective were the boilers. A number of men were put to work upon them. They were supplied with fresh tubes, and rapid preparations were being made to send her to sea, the men being engaged ostensibly for the purpose of going to China. Now, gentlemen—and this part of the case can be placed beyond all doubt—she was purchased and equipped, not for the China trade, but to become a vessel of war in the confederate service. The equipment, however, proceeded up to the 24th of November, a date to which your particular attention will be called. On that day the parties interested in her appear to have received some intelligence which changed their plans, for in the evening of that day, instead of proceeding with the equipment, she was suddenly, in the night, taken out of the Thames to sea, and subsequently was taken to Calais. No sooner was the vessel out at sea than the mask was cast off, and all disguise thrown away. The name was changed to the Rappahannock; a confederate captain came on board of her at Calais, who said he had been mate of the Alabama, and took possession of her as captain; a fresh flag, the confederate flag, was hoisted; the officers appeared in uniform; there was no disguise; the character of the vessel was openly discussed; it was given out that she was a man-of-war; the crew were called on deck; they were “mustered,” and required to sign what they called “articles of war”—that is, articles for service; they were offered £8 a month and £10 bounty, and prospects of prize money were held out, and the captain said, “I shall fight for my country and for glory, and you will fight for fame.” Some pressure was put upon them at that time; they were in a foreign country, without the means of returning home, and many of them were, unhappily, induced to enlist. The preparations for equipment, which had been interrupted, were proceeded with; a number of boiler-makers were sent for from England, and many of them were induced to leave their employment in the dock-yard without leave, and when they returned they were discharged as having been absent without leave. Attempts were made to enlist more men; a large store of coals was taken in; but at this point the French government stepped in. The French government, not choosing their ports to be made the scene of hostile operations, interposed and prevented any further equipment of the vessel, and, by the short and summary process of mooring a man-of-war across her bows, prevented her going out of port, and she has been kept a prisoner in the harbor ever since. Such, gentlemen, is a short outline of the history of this vessel—first, the government gunboat Victor, next the merchant ship the Scylla, bound for China. and then the confederate war steamer the Rappahannock. Now, probably, there never was beard of a more audacious attempt on the part of a belligerent to violate neutral sovereignty and neutral territory. I will now, gentlemen, inform you what part Mr. Rumble, the defendant, took in these matters, and I regret to inform you that, according to the evidence, he took an active part, if not the principal part, in the equipment of the vessel and procuring for her a crew. The evidence, if it bears out the instructions I have received, will, I think, leave no doubt whatever in your minds that he knew perfectly well from the beginning the true character and destination of the ship. He was frequently, indeed almost daily, on board the vessel superintending her equipment; and you will bear in mind that she had ceased to belong to the government, and they had nothing to do with her. She was ostensibly a merchant vessel belonging to a private firm, and Mr. Rumble, as inspector of floating machinery, had nothing to do with her. Still, he was there almost every day, giving directions upon the subject of her equipment. He procured boiler-makers and set them to work, and gave them directions what they should do to the boilers. He ordered new tubes to be put in; he gave directions with respect to the rigging and the other equipments. The vessel was masted with the aid of Captain Hall, of her Majesty’s ship the Cumberland, a ship which had apparatus for masting vessels, and the use of which was applied for to assist in masting her; and I understand that Captain Hall, wishing to try the new apparatus for the purpose, consented to allow it to be used. But inasmuch as the government have no reason to suppose, that he knew of the destination of the vessel at that time, they have not thought fit to lay any blame upon him, though they were not at the time aware that this had been done. Well, Mr. Rumble was constantly on board, superin tending the equipment of the vessel, which proceeded up to a certain point, and then it was interrupted. But, further, he took an active part in manning the vessel. He was held out as the person to whom men seeking employment on the vessel should apply; they applied to him, and he received their applications; he himself engaged men in different capacities, and agreed with them as to the amount of wages they were to receive; when they went to sea he paid them their wages for some weeks, held out inducements to many of them to join the vessel, and said that he would, when they were at sea, take care that the portion of their wages they did not want should be transmitted to their wives. He paid the passage of several men from Woolwich to Sheerness when they went to join the vessel. And I am informed that on the afternoon of the 24th of November, when the vessel left the river, he was on board as late as 5 o’clock in the evening, when preparations for departure were going on. He was down in the cabin with the real owner, Mr. Pearson, and the persons then in command; several of the crew were brought into the cabin, and then Mr. Rumble endeavored to induce them to enlist for a long voyage. He failed as to some; some of them refused to sign the articles, but some were induced to do so “for a trial trip,” as it was said—”a trial trip.” Mr. Rumble was then present while the articles were being signed, endeavoring to induce the men to enlist. Now, gentlemen, as to the enlistment, one point of law for which the crown contends is this—it arose at the late assizes in the case of the “Queen vs. Jones,” which was tried before the lord chief justice,(and which we reported towards the end of last term,) viz: that if he was a party to the procuring of these men to serve on board a confederate vessel of war he is guilty of an offence, on whatever pretence the men were engaged; whether it was that they were to go to China or on “a trial trip,” if the men were actually engaged and employed, and if he procured them to be employed in that service, he is guilty of an offence against this act; and it is not the less such an offence because a fraud was practiced on the men. Now, gentlemen, it will be proper that I should state the evidence which bears upon this question. There will be no doubt that he, from the beginning, knew the character and destination of the vessel; at all events that he knew it before he went to Calais. I will call before you several of the men, who will tell you what he said, and one or two of the men he endeavored to induce to sign by representations of this kind:”You will not only have pay, but perquisites beyond the pay;” and to one of the men he said, “If you cruise on board that ship and you live to return, you will not want to work any more during your life.” I shall show you fromone witness—I believea highly respectable witness, whom Mr. Rumble endeavored toengage, but did not succeed in engaging—that on Mr. Rumble asking him to be second engineer, and the man saying that he had not sufficient clothes, Mr. Rumble said,” Clothes don’t signify, for when you get on board uniforms will be provided— a gray uniform; there is plenty of cloth on board, and we will make it up into uniforms for the crew.”Now, if you believe that, there can be no question as to Mr. Rumble knowing the destination of the vessel. What was the mate of a vessel in the China trade to do with gray uniforms? Mr. Rumble appeared to know all that was going on in the vessel, and told the men that the captain would join when she was at Calais—a promise, which was fulfilled, for there the late mate of the Alabama came on board as captain. But the case does not stop here. The vessel went away from the river on the 24th of November, and three or four days afterwards, I think on the 28th, Mr. Rumble himself went to Calais, and went in the same boat with a number of boiler-makers, who were going from some dock-yards to assist in the completion of the equipment of the vessel. And I am informed that Mr. Rumble was on board the vessel when the scene I have described took place, and that he was on board, if not on deck, at the time the captain summoned the crew and engaged them for the service, and he was, I am informed, in the cabin when some of the men received the bounty for their enlistment. But the case does not stop even there. Mr. Rumble returned, and one or two particulars occurred to which I must call attention. At all events, when he returned he knew the character of the vessel. Indeed, he had known it before, according to his own account, for he referred to a statement in the newspapers as to the hoisting of the confederate flag at Calais. So he knew of that fact, and if, as I presume will be set up by my learned friends, his counsel, he was imposed upon and deceived, and did not know that the ship was more than a mere merchant ship before she left the river, what would be his feelings upon hearing that a gross fraud had been practiced upon him, and that he, a Queen’s officer, had been practiced upon and deluded into assisting in fitting out a belligerent vessel ? One would suppose that he would have shown indignation, and that at all events he would have insisted upon washing his hands of the whole affair. But I am informed that after, by his own showing, he knew that this was a vessel of war, on a man applying to him for employment on the vessel he said, “I will speak to the confederate agent about you, and procure you employment.” And further, I am informed that upon his return to Dover from Calais, when he had been on board the vessel, meeting with one of the boiler-makers who had been employed on the vessel, but had returned, Mr. Rumble used every kind of persuasion to induce him to go back to her. Gentlemen, this is an outline of the facts which, as I am instructed, I shall be able to prove. I have purposely made it only an outline, for it will be better that you should hear the details from the witnesses themselves. Gentlemen, probably the witnesses called on the part of the Crown will, many of them, be the subject of severe cross-examination, and remarks maybe made upon their testimony, perhaps deserving of your attention. You will observe that, from the nature of the case, these are the only witnesses the Crown could possibly call before you. As to two or three of them, I think it proper to say that they have written a letter to Mr. Rumble exonerating him from all share in the transaction. That will be a very proper topic for cross-examination, and if it is resorted to, there will be an explanation. It would not be proper for me to enter fully into the circumstances by which it may be explained; but I am informed that Mr. Rumble got them brought into a private room, and administered to them what he called an oath, that the statements made in the depositions were not true. You will see by-and-by whether or not this is the truth. Now then, gentlemen, that is the case against Mr. Rumble. I do not impute to him that he has been actuated by base or mercenary motives, that he is a paid agent of the confederate government, or has proposed to himself any pecuniary advantage or emolument for his part of the transaction. I am willing to suppose that he has been led away by sympathy with the confederate cause, which in some persons amounts to enthusiasm, into a temporary forgetfulness of his duties. Far be it from me to impute it to any man as a blame, still less as a crime, that he feels a sympathy with either of the belligerents. We must all have our sympathies. Thought in this country is free, and expression also is free; but no man is free to act in contravention of the law; and I am sure you will agree with me that if every subject of the Queen is bound to obey the law and the Queen’s proclamation, that obligation is much stronger upon those who bear the Queen’s commission.

The Lord Chief Justice. We have nothing to do with that. It may be matter for consideration for the court at another stage of the case, (if it should reach that stage,) but we have nothing to do with it now.

The Solicitor General. Quite so. Gentlemen, I am glad to see that my learned friend, Mr. Bovili, appears on behalf of this gentleman, and will, I am sure, exercise to the utmost his great abilities in order to secure, by every fair and honorable means, the acquittal of his client. If he shall succeed in satisfying you that the statements of the witnesses are not true, or, if true, that they can be explained, consistently with the innocence of Mr. Rumble, I shall be satisfied, and I am sure you will agree with me. But if the facts shall be substantially established as I have stated them, then I am satisfied that as the Crown has done its duty in instituting this prosecution, you will faithfully and fearlessly perform yours by vindicating the law of the country.

Captain Wise, captain-superintendent of Sheerness dock-yard, was then called and examined by Mr. Lush, Q. C. He gave the particulars of the vessel, and stated that when the ship was sold her warlike equipments were taken out of her, and she was sold and delivered without masts, stores, or engines, boilers, or machinery. An application by the purchasers for the stores was refused, and she was sold without fixtures. Messrs. Coleman, merchants, were the purchasers. The defendant, Mr. Rumble, had nothing to do with her connected with his duties.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill :

And you had nothing to do with her?

No; not after she was fitted up.

Nor Captain Hall?

No.

Nor Mr. Rees, the master-rigger ?

No.

Now, first, did you, the captain-superintendent, allow her to be docked after she was purchased ?

Certainly not; it was before the purchase was completed.

The witness was pressed as to whether, after the purchase, Messrs. Coleman did not apply the admiralty to have the ship docked. He said there was such an application, and it was referred to the dock authorities, and she was docked on the 8th of October.

Mr. Bovill. That is exactly what I wanted to know. The ship, then, was, after the purchase, and at the request of the purchaser, docked at the dock-yard ?

Witness. Yes; under orders from the admiralty.

Mr. Bovill. With your sanction, as captain-superintendent ?

The witness stated that it was before the purchase was completed. He was pressed as to this, and desired to refer to the papers. The witness then produced the purchaser’s written requisition, dated 17th of September, 1863: “We beg you will give permission to place in the dry-dock the vessel we have purchased from the admiralty, for the purpose of examining her, with a view to taking her away under steam, it being done at our expense.”

The Lord Chief Justice. That shows it was after the purchase.

The witness stated, that upon this there was an order to dock the ship, though it could not be done at once. The witness then read the answer, dated 27th of September: “My lords approve of the Victor, purchased by Messrs. Coleman, being docked on the 10th of October, for the purpose of inspecting her bottom, at the purchasers’ expense.” The witness then went on to state, that on the 8th of October “the government officials” took the ship out of the Medway and put her into the dry-dock at Sheerness, and examined her. It was all, he said, “done by the government.” He did not know, he said, if any one was there on the part of the owners, but it was done at their expense. During the time she was there no repairs were done, except repairing an accident, &c., but she was thoroughly examined. On the 13th of October she was taken out of dock into the basin, and on the 2d of November out into the river, and there her masts were put into her. Nothing was done until after the 12th of November, after she was given up. It was on the 10th of November she was given up, and after that the owners sent down the masts.

Mr. Bovill. Were they not put into her by Captain Hall, captain of the Steam Reserve, and with the aid of a government ship—the Cumberland ?

Yes.

Mr. Bovill. Was her rigging put up by riggers belonging to the dock-yard ?

I believe it was; but after working hours. I had no control over them after those hours.

Mr. Bovill. Was she at the government moorings ?

Yes; as she had no anchor, the owners asked that she might be made fast to a government buoy.

Mr. Bovill. And she was taken out by a government tug?

Yes.

Mr. Bovill. And remained at the government moorings until she was given up ?

Witness. I believe, after she had her masts in her, she lay at her own anchors.

Mr. Bovill. Well, I suppose it was well known to every one that she was lying there being fitted out?

It could be no secret, as she was lying there.

Mr. Bovill. And it was understood she was going to China ?

Yes: we so understood.

And you rendered every assistance ?

Yes.

And made no objection to the men working on her after working hours ?

No; it is not unusual when a ship has been sold to render every assistance to her.

Mr. Bovill. And the inspector of machinery afloat might be disposed to do so, eh ?

Yes; he might.

Mr. Rumble is an officer who has been twenty years in the service of the Crown?

Yes; he has.

And he would be entitled to a pension, or his widow ?

Yes; according to the rules of the service.

Well, the vessel lay there known to every one—the officers and the public?

Yes.[The witness said she lay in the river from the 2d till the 24th of November.]

Mr. Bovill. Now, just tell me this—you have not been able to keep federal spies out of the dock-yard, eh?

Well, there have been men mixed up with these matters.

And some have been dismissed, have they not ?

None have been dismissed; one man asked for his discharge.

Well, there have been federal spies, I believe ?

Spies on both sides.

The Lord Chief Justice. What do you mean by federal spies ?

Witness. Why, my lord, there were men who were gaining information about this vessel.

The Lord Chief Justice. It is very remote from the present matter.

Mr. Bovill elicited that one man named Warne had got his discharge on this account, and wanted to pursue the subject further; but

The Lord Chief Justice said it was irrelevant, and he would not permit it.

The next witness was the man Firth, who was examined by Mr. Hannen. He said he had been a breaker-up of ships at the dock, and he stated that in the autumn of last year he had been engaged to work upon the ship by a Mr. Ferguson, who said he was chief engineer. I was to meet a Mr. Carr before going on board. No one was with Carr then. I, Cole, and Hurford were together. We were to meet Rumble in the dock-yard at Sheerness, Carr said while going down in the train. We went to the dock-yard at about 11 a. m. to the Steam Reserve office and met Rumble about half-past 1. Rumble was coming through the dock-yard gate. Carr went and spoke to Rumble. We went towards the water side, and Rumble sung out and told Carr to go down to the dock-yard pier, and take a boat and go off to see the Scylla, and he would be off as soon as we. We went on board. Rumble was on board before us. On board Rumble spoke to Carr. I didn’t hear what he said. We were then put to work. Carr was second engineer on board the Scylla. Carr ordered me to go down, and told me to look after the stores. I was engaged upon her till she sailed, and afterwards. Rumble paid the first week’s wages. He paid me on board the ship. He then told me he would allow us a guinea a week while we stopped there. Then I asked him where she was going. He told me he didn’t know where she was going to, but if I went away in the ship and lived to come home again I shouldn’t have to work any longer. Then he said he would like to go me halves. That’s all that passed with me.

The Lord Chief Justice. How long did you continue there ?

Witness. Three weeks, and one or two days at Sheerness. Rumble came on board often—sometimes twice a day, and other days oftener. He was taken ill, but until he was taken ill he came on board every day. He told me if I wanted anything on board I was to let him know. I applied to him for several things; they were for the use of the ship—shovels, tools, rakes, &c, and a cask of oil. He put them down in his pocket-book, and they were sent on board next morning. This went on till the time of the vessel going away. I went away with the vessel between 9 and 10 on a Tuesday night. On that night I did not see Mr. Rumble on board. I saw him on board that afternoon before we went away, just as we Avere going to dinner. Mr. Ferguson called us into the cabin. Mr. Rumble was there. They called me into the cabin, and Rumble asked me if I was going to sign the ship’s articles. I told him yes. Rumble offered me six pounds a month, and I asked him for eight pounds. Mr. Rumble said, “Here’s one of the owners,” pointing to Mr. Pearson, “and he can’t afford to give more than six pounds.” Mr. Pearson then told me he wou d give me eight pounds. Mr. Rumble asked me how I’d like to have the wages. I told him I wanted to handle my own money. He asked me if I couldn’t trust him to send it home to my wife. I told him I had nothing but what I stood upright in. No more passed. I didn’t sign the articles. Then he told me to go out of the cabin and send my mates in. I did. That night we went off. I was in the engine-room, on the platform. That was my place.

By the Lord Chief Justice :

Afterwards we agreed with Mr. Ramsay for fourteen days. We went to Calais. I didn’t know where I was going, nor when she was going to start. On Saturday they said she would go on Wednesday, and she went on Tuesday. We sighted Calais about 4 in the afternoon. Mr. Ramsay commanded the vessel to Calais. We dodged about off Calais all night. Went in next day. A flag was hoisted outside the harbor. It was white, with a union jack at the top corner, a red stripe down the middle, and thirteen stars. [Paper handed to witness.] This is like it, but it ought to have a red stripe down the middle. I was told that it was the confederate flag. I remained three or four days on board at Calais. I didn’t like to go in her when I saw the flag. Another captain came, Captain Campbell, and we were called aft and told he was the captain. He was then in plain clothes. He asked us to go in her, and some of us said “Yes” and some said “No.” He told us she was a confederate man-of-war, and he would like to have us all go in her. I wouldn’t go. I did not see Rumble on board while at Calais, nor aí Calais. The captain addressed us the day after our arrival at Calais. The next day he came on board in uniform—a gray suit. Mr. Rumble paid our expenses on the first occasion from Woolwich to Sheerness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill :

Mr. Ferguson engaged me, and he had engaged Carr as engineer. Ferguson was a friend of mine. I had been to sea with him before. I never conversed with Rumble about going on board the ship. I knew Carr before Hurford. Cole was with us. I knew Cole before. I then worked on board the Caledonian in Victoria docks. She was a government ship. No repairs were going on on the Scylla when we went there. Only the cook and Mr. Ramsay were on board, and Mr. Rumble. There was nothing being done at the time. Carr told us what to do. It was to work at the engine and boiler. Boiler-makers came on board and worked. The tubes were very bad. While we were at the buoy nothing was done but knocking about the boiler. I am now employed at breaking up ships at New-yard, Mr. Castle’s.

Mr. Bovill. Have you within three months received anything but your wages ?

Only twelve shillings and six pence a week. I believe it comes from Rochester—I think from Essell, Knight, and Arnold. They give me that to keep me from going to sea. I have been receiving it for five or six weeks past.

The Solicitor General. I may state that several have received this to prevent them from going away. We could not retain seafaring witnesses otherwise. By Mr. Bovill. Cole, Brooks, Ginno, and I received this. I have been at Castle’s a fortnight. Before I received the money from Essell, Knight, and Arnold I received nothing. J. Brooks, Cole, and Hurford are at Castle’s.

Mr. Bovill. How do you all come to be at the same place ?

Witness. Luck, I suppose. (A laugh.) O’Kelly. and Warne came there sometimes. I first knew O’Kelly when we first came back from Calais.

Mr. Bovill. He has been attentive to you since, and refreshes you with beer occasionally?

Yes. (A laugh.) We sometimes have had it together. When we feel dry we drop in anywhere.

Mr. Bovill. And O’Kelly moistens, your throats? (Laughter.)

Yes.

Mr. Bovill. Did O’Kelly ever take you anywhere to make a statement?

Witness. No; I went to meet him. I went to London on my own business, and ran up against him. (Laughter.) When I met O’Kelly we went into a public house. He treated me to a pint of beer, and I and he drank it. I met him at the bottom of Fenchurch street.

Mr. Bovill. When did you first make a statement to anyone about this vessel ?

About this time last year I went into a public house with O’Kelly and two other gentlemen, and that was the first time I ever made a statement about it. It was the Derby Arms. O’Kelly and these two came to Woolwich factory, and took out me and Brooks, and Ginno, and Bailey, and Hurford. I had only seen O’Kelly once before that, the morning after I came from Calais. Five of us had a drop with him.

By the Lord Chief Justice:

We had three pots of half-and-half, but didn’t get tight.(A laugh.)

The Lord Chief Justice. Brush your mind up a little. When did you see him?

The first day after I came back from Calais, Then I was to meet him up in London. I made no statement in London, He promised us all a ship. Never heard him say we should have “good berths” or “good pay.” O’Kelly don’t give money to stay. He never gave me anything, only beer—plenty of that. (Laughter.) I don’t know who he is, where he lives, nor anything about him. I was told to meet him in Mitre street, near London bridge. I last saw O’Kelly one day last week and this morning. Had no beer this morning. Would like to have a little drop. (Laughter.) I mean to swear that O’Kelly never gave me money—let me see; yes, he gave me 12s. 6d. the week before last, at Woolwich, at a public house, at the Tom and Jerry, and beer at the same time. Brooks and I were there. I never saw him give Brooks 12s. 6d,; 12s. 6d. is all he has ever given me. I stated before the magistrates at my examination what they asked. I believe I didn’t then say anything about what I have now said regarding Rumble’s saying that he would go me halves.

Mr. Bovill. Did you ever make one statement about that until after the third meeting with O’Kelly?

Witness. I can’t say that I didn’t or that I did. Mr. Rumble first conversed with me about signing the ship’s articles. Mr. Ferguson called me into the cabin. It was in the cabin that articles were first mentioned. Mr. Rumble spoke to me about them.

Mr. Bovill. Did you not swear before the magistrates that Mr. Ferguson told you to go into the cabin to sign the ship’s articles ?

Witness. Yes; he first spoke to me about the articles. Then Rumble asked whether I was going to sign. I don’t know whether or no I said anything about Rumble telling me to sign the ship’s articles. Rumble never said anything about what we were to have after we left Sheerness. Ferguson engaged us. On Saturday morning Mr. Rumble paid me. He told me we were to have a guinea a week and provisions. I had made no arrangement up to that time except with Ferguson. We didn’t know what we were to have until Rumble paid us. I thought she was going to run the blockade or going to China in the opium trade. No one told me where she was going. I had no notion of enlisting in the confederate service. The talk among the men was that she was going to China in the opium trade. I was engaged to go a trial trip as far as Brest.

The Lord Chief Justice. Who engaged you ?

Witness. Mr. Ramsay, as storekeeper. When we got to sea we found the boilers and the tubes very bad. The riggers at Sheerness were employed about the ship, painters, &c., of Sherness, and other tradesmen. I should have declined to enter the confederate service. At Sheerness they offered us £10 bounty; no, it was over at Calais. When we were off Calais the flag was made on board. The boilers were not being repaired at Calais while I was on board. Captain Campbell came on board the same night or next morning. He called us aft and told us she was a confederate vessel. As far as I know, it was the first any of us had heard of it.

A.Juror. What wages would have been given for the ordinary trip to China?

Witness. About £4 10s. or £5. It would be the same for the opium trade.

Re-examined by the Solicitor General :

Ferguson didn’t agree with me as to terms. Then I came to Sheerness and went on board the vessel, and Mr. Rumble was there, and nothing was said about wages. The first occasion Mr. Rumble came on board and ordered all aft. We stood round Mr. Rumble. He pulled out the money, and said, “I intend to give you a week,” and paid me. He paid me the next week £1 1s. He only paid me two weeks. The third week Mr. Ramsay paid us outside the Foundling inn at Sheerness. When we were called into the cabin Mr. Rumble firs spoke to us about articles. Mr. Rumble left the ship soon after. I made no statement to O’Kelly the first time in London. I was examined by the magistrates at Sitting bourne a fort night after I met O’Kelly. I only answered the questions put to me. I’m sure I told O’Kelli about Mr. Rumble saying he would like to go halves. I stated it of my own accord. I go 12s. 6d. from Essell, Knight, and Arnold’s, and 18s. wages from Castle’s. I received it to prevent my going away. I was going to the, Baltic. I was going away last March to rur the blockade. (To the Lord Chief Justice.) I was prevented by Essell, Knight, and Arnold I should have got £5 a month to run the blockade; and out there they get something in ad dition.

The Lord Chief Justice. How was it you could not go away in March ?

They sent me word I was under a bond.

The Lord Chief Justice. How came O’Kelly to give you 12s. 6d. 1

I suppose it was for my regular wages from Essell, Knight, and Arnold.

James Hurford, one of the men mentioned in the indictment, was the next witness. He was examined by Mr. Harcourt. He said, I am a ship-breaker. I was employed las autumn on board the Scylla. I was sent there by Mr. Ferguson. He sent me from Wool wich to Sheerness. I saw at Sheerness Mr. Rumble. No one told me to go to him. I wen with the rest. I had nothing to say to him the first time. I went on board ship after I saw Mr. Rumble. Some time after I was working on board I saw Mr. Rumble. No agreemen was made for wages for some time after I went on board. We went aft and asked Mr Rumble some day or two after we came on board; all of us went. My expenses from Wool wich to Sheerness were paid by Mr. Rumble after we went on board. Rumble told us he was authorized from the company to pay us at the rate of £1 Is. a week, and our provisions would be added on board. I agreed to those terms. I remember the ship sailing at midnight That day I saw Mr. Rumble on board, but not to have any conversation with him. I was on board when she went to Calais. I stayed there seven or eight days. I was cleaning up When Rumble paid me he told us that the captain was not in England at present, but would be in England in the course of three or four days’ time, and he would make agreement with us. I was to be leading stoker. Nothing was said to me about signing articles before I go to Calais. Captain Campbell was the captain at Calais. Captain Campbell asked me to sign the ship’s articles. I did not consent. Captain Campbell told me what she was. I didn’t know before I got there. I declined going on conditions—unless I had watch and watch on shore while she was in harbor every other night, as in an English man-of-war Captain Campbell would not agree to it, so I didn’t sign. Before going to Calais Captain Rumble said he would send our money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Karslake, Q. C.:

I was not told that I was to be leading stoker till I had gone on board. I and Carr, Cole Firth, and Cozens were on board. He was pressed as to what was said about the captain, and whether it was not said by Mr. Rumble that when the captain or owner came he should have no more to do with it. A difference arose as to whether he had said that, or whethen he had said that “then agreements would be entered into or completed.”

Mr. Hannen said he was bound to siate that he had taken this note of what the witness said, “that the captain was not in England and he would make agreements with us, as he had then nothing more to do with it himself.”

The solicitor general stated that, as his learned friend had this note, it must be taken that the witness had so said.

Mr. Bovili and Mr. Karslake said they had not taken it.

The witness then repeated that what Mr. Rumble said was that “the captain would make agreements with them when he came, as he (Rumble) had nothing more to do with it himself.”

The cross-examination of the witness by Mr. Karslake was then continued, and it was elicited that he said to the defendant that it was not usual that men engaged in merchant ships should pay their own expenses upon coming to their ship, and that then Mr. Rumble paid him and Firth their expenses to Woolwich. He repeated that he saw Rumble on board on the day the ship sailed; but the superintendent of police was also there. He was pressed as to whether they were not both on board searching the vessel to see if government stores were not on board, but he could not say. He was asked whether he had not said that the defendant had said he merely paid the men because the owner was away; but he said that what he had said was that the captain was away. Upon this his deposition was put into his hand, in which he had sworn that the defendant had said he paid the wages because the owners were in London, and had requested him to pay the men, and he said he did say so. Being asked again, however, he said that what the defendant said was that the owners had asked him to pay the men, but that it was the captain who was away. The deposition was again appealed to, but

The lord chief justice said the depositions before magistrates were often badly taken down.

Mr. Karslake. Still it may be that he is wrong now.

The cross-examination of the witness by Mr. Karslake was then continued. He was pressed as to money received from Knight and Essell, the admiralty solicitors at Rochester, &c. He said he was still in the admiralty service. He was pressed as to how often he had seen O’Kelly. He said he had seen him perhaps thirty or forty times, but could not say. He had seen him at Calais. O’Kelly came to see him sometimes at Woolwich, where he was at work, and perhaps might “report.” He had seen Firth with him. He was often at the factory gates.

Mr. Karslake. What does he say ?

Witness. He asks me how I am,

Mr. Karslake. He asks after your health, eh? Is that what he reports about, eh ?

Witness said he did not know, but he supposed O’Kelly came to see that he did not run away.(Laughter.)

Mr. Karslake. Ob, he is a sort of spy over you, is he?

Witness said he did not know, but O’Kelly looked after him.

The witness was re-examined by the solicitor general, and stated that Ramsay was on board acting as captain, and told him he was to speak to Mr. Rumble, and afterwards Mr. Rumble told him the captain was away. After that Mr. Pearson came and acted as captain. He came on the day the ship went out from Sheerness to Calais. Both Pearson and Ramsay were on board, and he believed that Ramsay had most to do with the navigation. At Calais Captain Campbell came, and he supposed Pearson left. He did not see him afterwards. Before starting Ramsay had acted as captain.

The next witness examined was Coles, who was examined by the solicitor general. He applied, he said, to Ferguson, who told him to join the ship. He went down to Sheerness with Carr and two other men. Subsequently he went on board the ship and saw Ramsay there. He did not then see Mr. Rumble, but saw him in the factory, and saw him on board some few days afterwards. He got his passage-money from Hurford, but saw Rumble give it him, being close by at the time. Captain Ramsay was on board at the time. Mr. Rumble was so frequently on board that he could not say when he saw him next. Mr. Rumble gave him a guinea in the course of a week, he being then on board, and saying they were a good lot of men and he did not want to lose “the run of them.” The amount of wages had not been then settled, but then Mr. Rumble told them they were to receive a guinea a week and their food. Mr. Rumble also said he hoped they would be contented, and that they should have good food, but no grog. They were to have a guinea a week as long as they remained there, and they were paid the second and third weeks’ wages by Mr. Rumble. Some of the men put the question to Mr. Rumble where the ship was going, and he did not give any satisfactory answer.

Mr. Bovill. What did he say ?

Witness. He said that when we came home he should be glad to go halves with us in what we should receive. Witness went on to say that he saw Mr. Rumble constantly on board and looking about, as if it was his business to see that everything was fitted up properly, and he gave directions and asked questions—for instance, as to the boiler tubes; and he said that if the men wished to send any of the money to their friends he would see to it. They wanted the men to sign articles; the day they left Sheerness they were sent for “aft,” and went down into the cabin. There they saw Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Rumble, Mr. Ferguson, and another gentleman. He did not know if it was Mr. Pearson. Mr. Rumble asked the men if they intended to join the ship. “I,” said the witness, “ declined to join. I declined to sign articles. Mr. Rumble asked if we would go in the ship on a trial trip, not to exceed fourteen days.” Witness said he would go on a written condition, and Mr. Rumble said he agreed to it. Witness produced the “condition,” which ran thus :

“The undersigned agree to act as firemen on board the s. s. (screw steamer) Scylla, on a trial trip, not to exceed fourteen days, at the rate of £8 a month; to be sent to London at owners’ expense.”

This was signed by Mr. Ramsay, and Mr. Rumble was present. Until they started, Mr. Ramsay acted as captain. When they got off Calais, they looked up and saw a flag flying. He knew what it was, as he had seen it at sea, but he was so agitated about the boilers (which were in a very bad state) that he did not know what was said about it. The new captain came at Calais and sent for the firemen, represented himself to them as their new captain, and told them that they “must consider themselves as confederate men-of-war’s men.” He wanted to know if they would sign articles, and witness said he would not. Mr. Rumble had offered them £6 a month if they would engage to serve with the ship; that was when speaking of the trial trip; that was what was offered if they would remain with the ship, but the men wanted £8.

One of the Jury. We wish to know whether at that time it was not asked where the ship was going.

The witness said it had previously been asked of Mr. Rumble, as he had already stated, and no direct answer was made. Nor did he afterwards hear him say where the ship was going.

The Jury. What made you ask as much as £8 a month ?

The witness said he had had it before, as third or fourth engineer.

The Lord Chief Justice. It had no reference, then, to the particular voyage

Witness. No, it had not.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Bovili. He said that he carne home from China about two months ago, and had only received three weeks’ wages, (12s. 6d. a week.) He did not know from whom.

Mr. Bovill. Was it from O’Kelly ?

Witness said he did not know. Being asked as to what had taken place down in the cabin, he said he and Firth, Hurford, and others, were there, and that Mr. Rumble said that he was authorized by the “ company “—that is, the firm of owners—to pay them a guinea a week. Until he saw the confederate flag at Calais he did not know anything at all about the ship being for the confederates, and when he had signed the paper he had no idea of anything but a “trial trip.” The boilers, he said, were very bad, only fit for a trial trip. They might, however, be got into good condition in a few days. The witness went on to state that a government tug took the ship out of harbor the day she left Sheerness. He came up on board and saw the government tug towing her.

Captain Wise here exclaimed: The greatest falsehood ever told!

Mr. Bovill. You must not speak so loud, Captain Wise. You were not there at the time.

Captain Wise. No; but it is not possible.

Mr. Bovill. Then you ought not to say so, sitting there representing the Crown.

The Solicitor General. Captain Wise did not mean what he said to be heard.

The Lord Chief Justice exaonned the witness closely as to this. He swore positively that he was certain that it was a government tug. He had been in the government service and knew a government tug when he saw it. There could, he said, be no mistake about it.

The Solicitor General pressed him as to when it was.

The Witness. When we went out from Sheerness to Calais; the night we left.

[The witness spoke quite positively and firmly, and there could be no mistake as to what he meant. His statement seemed to create the utmost surprise among the counsel for the Crown.]

Newman was the next witness; he was examined by Mr. Lush. He said he was referred to Mr. Rumble by a Mr. Greathead, and was referred by Mr. Rumble to the mate. He asked the ship’s destination, but could get no satisfactory answer. At last witness said he told Mr. Rumble that he would go. He was to go on the Wednesday, the 25th of November, but she went on the Tuesday, the 24th, in the evening. He afterwards went to Mr. Rumble about it, and he (Mr. Ramble) said: “I suppose you are aware she has arrived at Calais?” He said he was, as he had seen it in the newspapers, and that she had hoisted the confederate flag. [It was not clear from the witness’s way of giving his evidence whether he had merely seen it or had said that he had seen it, but he stated that Mr. Rumble had not said it.] He said that he had been in the American service, and on the coast of America, and Mr. Rumble said he “thought he would be a very useful man,” and “that he was going to London to see the confederate agent,” and would drop witness a note, and he left him with that understanding. Mr. Rumble knew he was in the government service, and asked him if he could get his discharge.

Mr. Lush. Did he or you say anything about the confederate flag ?

Witness. No; but I had seen it in the papers that the vessel had hoisted that flag. Being afraid of getting himself into trouble, the witness said, he threw the whole affair up.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill :

The witness said that Mr. Greathead, who referred him to Mr. Rumble, was an officer of the dock, and Mr. Rumble referred him to the mate, who was Ramsay. He did not know when the ship was at Sheerness that the ship was for the confederate service; but at the time he had the conversation with Mr. Rumble, after the ship was gone, it was known,, and was a matter of general conversation, that she was a confederate ship. He went on to say that he wanted to make money, and he did not care whether it was in the federal or confederate service.(Laughter.)

Mr. Bovill; Are you an American ?

Witness. No; but I was a good many years in the American service.

The Lord Chief Justice. In the service of the United States?

Witness. Yes.

Mr. Bovill. Well, I suppose you had some inducement to go abroad—eh?

Witness. Yes; I had a wife and family. (Laughter.)

The witness explained that for the sake of his wife and family he would not mind going abroad to make money.

Mr. Bovill. But no other inducement—Mr. O’Kelly, eh ?

Witness. No, I don’t know him; I wanted to make money.

Mr. Bovill. Are you quite sure Mr. Rumble spoke to you about the confederate agent ?

Witness said he was. He was pressed a good deal as to this, but adhered to it, and said that Mr. Greathead and Mr. Rumble’s son were present at the time Mr. Bovill. Do you know that Mr. Rumble’s son is in the Mediterranean, in the Wizard gunboat?

Witness said he knew that he was in the naval service; he did not know where.

Mr. Bovill. Where is Mr. Greathead ?

Witness said he believed he was at Malta, as an engineer in the government service.

Mr. Bovili elicited that this witness had not been examined before the magistrates, so that he now heard this for the first time.

The lord chief justice observed that this was most important, and without asking any decision to be taken at the moment, when the case for the Crown is closed, perhaps it may be proper to give you an opportunity of having those witnesses present.

Mr. Bovili said he was much obliged to his lordship. This was the first time he had heard that they were present. It was true that the solicitor for the treasury, Mr. Greenwood, had two or three days ago very kindly sent him a copy of the new depositions, but they did not disclose that these persons were present.

Mr. Lush pointed out that they did disclose that young Mr. Rumble was present.

Mr. Bovill said he had not observed it; if he had he should have applied for a postponement of the trial.

The witness was then re-examined by Mr. Lush as to the tugs, with a view to show that there were only two tugs in the harbor, and that, so far as he knew, neither of them was employed to tow the vessel out on the night of her departure. One, he said, was under repair, and could not have gone; the other did not go, so far as he knew.

Mr. Bovill was allowed to cross-examine the witness on that point, and elicited that he was not quite positive that there were only two government tugs in the port at the time.

After which,

The Lord Chief Justice said: Mr. Solicitor General, after the evidence given by this witness as to the conversation with Mr. Rumble, it would be but reasonable to afford to the defendant the opportunity of producing those persons who were present, because the evidence is calculated, if not answered, to produce a strong impression, and it would be but reasonable, as it has taken the other side more or less by surprise, that they should have an opportunity of producing the two persons who are vouched as having been present. That necessitates an adjournment of the case; and then it occurs to me that if it is to take place it would be better that it should take place at once, and not, as I at first thought, after the case for the Crown had been concluded; because, after an adjournment at that stage the evidence will not be so freshly and vividly on the minds of the jury as if it took place now. On the trial being resumed I shall read over the evidence which has now been taken, and perhaps, upon the whole, it will be better to adjourn at once.

The Solicitor General. I think so, too.

Mr. Bovill. I concur in so thinking.

The Lord Chief Justice. Looking at the nature of the case, I think it will be so. It is unfortunate that these two witnesses are away, but their evidence is so important that it would not be satisfactory to. continue the case without it.

The Jury. When is the trial to be adjourned to?

The Lord Chief Justice. Till the sittings after next term, in February. You will take care to keep your minds in the mean time free from all impressions upon the case.

Mr. Bovili observed that he hoped the admiralty would render their assistance to procure and produce the two witnesses referred to, and who were both in the government service.

The solicitor general said he had no doubt the admiralty would do so.

The trial was then accordingly adjourned until February.