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. 869.]

Legation of the United States. London, February 3, 1865.

Sir. I transmit a copy of the London Times, of the 31st ultimo, containing a report of the charge of the chief justice, in the court of common pleas, in a private action to recover insurance on a portion of the cargo of the steamer Peterhoff, which was captured, and has since been condemned, as bound on an illegal voyage.

I likewise have the honor to send copies of the Times, of the 2d and 3d instant, containing a report of the proceedings in the case of Mr. Rumble.

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

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Hon. William. H. Seward. &c., &c., &c.

[From the London Times of January 31, 1865.]

[Untitled]

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—Westminster, January 30.

(Sittings in Banco, Hilary Term, before Lord Chief Justice Erle and Justices Willes and Keating.)

HOBBS VS. HEMMING.

This was an action on a policy of insurance effected on twenty-six packages placed on board the ship Peterhoff, to be carried from London to Matamoras, which vessel was taken as prize by a federal cruiser, and subsequently condemned in one of the prize courts of the federal States for having goods on board contraband of war. The American prize court found that the ship’s papers were false and simulated, and that the ship was not going to Matamoras, but to some other port with goods contraband of war on board in aid of a belligerent power with whom the federal States were at war, and that the ship was carrying goods and papers which rendered her liable to be seized by such cruisers, and that she was so seized accordingly. The defendants by their seventh plea set out these facts as a defence to the action. To this plea there was a demurrer. The case was argued on the 16th of November last, when the court took time to consider its judgment, Mr. Temple, Queen’s counsel, and Mr. Hannen appearing for the plaintiff in support of the demurrer, and Mr. Lush, Queen’s counsel, and Sir George Honyman for the defence. This morning

The Lord Chief Justic. delivered the judgment of the court. After stating the pleadings he said the court did not find that the plea set out sufficient averments to be a defence on the ground of the concealment by the plaintiff of material facts. As the court read the plea they took it to be consistent therewith that the goods of the plaintiff were sent from a neutral to a neutral port in a neutral ship. The allegation in the declaration, that the goods were sent from London to Matamoras, was admitted by the plea, and the defendants relied on its proximity to the Confederate States. But the court could not draw any unfavorable inference therefrom against the plaintiff, if the goods were in the course of transport from a, neutral to a neutral port. The better opinion seemed to be that war did not give to a belligerent any right to seize them on account of their quality. The allegation that the goods were shipped for the purpose of being sent to an enemy’s port was an allegation of a neutral process. The court were not to assume therefrom either that the plaintiff had made any contract, or provided any means for the further transmission of the goods into the enemy’s State, or that the shipment to Matamoras was an unreal pretence. If the goods were in a course of transmission not to Matamoras, but to an enemy’s port, the voyage would not be covered by the policy, and that defence was raised in direct terms by the third plea. Then the allegation did not deny the destination to the neutral port to which the insurance related, but introduced a purpose existing in the mind of the assured, after the termination of the voyage insured, for the ulterior disposition of the cargo and ship. It was consistent with that purpose, as was alleged, that the plaintiff made the consignment for mercantile profit as the end to be attained by him; in other words, that he knew of an effective demand for warlike stores at Matamoras, and was induced to send a supply by the expectation of a high price, and that he expected that the purchase would probably be made on behalf of the Confederate States, and in that sense had the purpose that the goods should pass into those States. In that sense price was the ultimate end which he proposed to attain, and federal and confederate were alike indifferent as means, provided he attained that end; and in a neutral territory he might lawfully sell to either. The court, therefore, thought that the averment “that the goods, were shipped for the purpose of being sent to an enemy’s port” was insufficient to establish that they were liable to seizure for a breach of neutrality. The effect of the other allegations in the plea depended much on that which the court had just considered. If goods fit for immediate use in war, and therefore of the quality described by the term “contraband of war,” were passing between neutrals, it seemed that they were not liable to seizure by a belligerent. The right of capture, according to Sir William Scott’s opinion, expressed in the case of the Iowa, 3d Robinson, 188, attaches only when they are passing on the high seas to an enemy’s ports; they must “be taken in delicto—that is, in the actual prosecution of a voyage to an enemy’s port.” The liability, therefore, of these goods to lawful seizure, although their quality was such as might make them contraband of war, depended upon their destination, and they were not liable unless it distinctly appeared that the voyage was to an enemy’s port. The further allegation that the ship was conveying goods and papers which made them liable to be seized was immaterial as a ground of defence, for these goods were not alleged to be the plaintiff’s goods, the plaintiff was not shown to be responsible for the ship’s papers, nor for any other goods than his own. Also, if the voyage were to a neutral port and the law was as above stated, the facts alleged did not show that the ship and goods were liable to seizure. Furthermore, the allegation that the ship was carrying papers which made it liable to be seized was not strictly accurate in reference to the law of nations. The papers alone were not a breach of neutrality so as to work a forfeiture of the ship; they were only evidence from which a cause of forfeiture might be inferred. They might be evidence either of enemy’s property or of destination to a blockaded port, or to an enemy’s port with contraband, should be evidence on which the judge might find a cause of forfeiture proved; but they were in themselves no cause of forfeiture.

The language of Sir William Scott, in thè case of the Franklin, 3 Robinson, 221, speaking of simulated papers, and saying that “this fraudulent conduct justly subjects the ship to confiscation,” must be taken with reference to the question before him, whether the ship should be confiscated as well as the contraband cargo, and his decision was in the affirmative; and rightly, if the ship-owner was knowingly conveying contraband to an enemy’s port, of which knowledge papers indicating a false destination would raise a presumption. These being the premises alleged in the plea, the allegation that the defendant was ignorant of them is of no avail. If the defence were that the plaintiff had concealed a fact that he was bound to disclose, the plea should proceed accordingly; as it stood, it showed no wrongful act on the part of the plaintiff to the insurer. The eighth plea set out a judgment by way of estoppel, and the defendant in support of it relied on the rule, that sentence of foreign courts deciding questions of prize was to be received as conclusive evidence in actions on policies on every subject immediately and properly within the jurisdiction of the court on which it has professed to decide judicially, and the defendant contended that the judgment as pleaded showed that the voyage on which the ship was captured was not a voyage from London to Matamoras. The court thought that the decision of the prize court could not be pleaded as an estoppel. In support of this view a great number of legal decisions were referred to. The condemnation appeared to the court to have been for carrying contraband of war intended to be for the use of the enemy of the United States, and the sentence, so far from deciding that the ship with the said goods did not sail on the voyage from London to Matamoras, appeared to the court to express that she was on that voyage when she was taken. The first matter of fact found by the judge was that the ship was knowingly on the voyage aforesaid (that is, from London to Matamoras) laden with contraband. The second was that the said ship, with the said cargo, was not truly destined to Matamoras, a neutral port, and for the purpose of trade and commerce within the authority and intendment of public law-; it was destined for some other port or place, and in and for the use of the enemy, and in violation of the law of nations, and that the ship’s papers were simulated and false. If the judgment defined that the ship was not bound to Matamoras, but to a port of the enemy, the finding would have been so expressed; but if the judges meant to find that she was bound to Matamoras, not for the purpose of commerce with the inhabitants thereof, but for the purpose of such a sale or transfer there as that the confederates should get the use of the cargo, all the words of the judgment have their usual meaning and effect. The court had no jurisdiction to inquire into, nor where they at all considering the validity of the legal grounds of the judgment. Their task was to ascertain what matter of fact the judge found to exist. He may have considered that trading with the confederates was not within the authority and intendment of publie law, and was in violatian of the law of nations, and that a voyage to Matamoras with that object made the cargo liable to confiscation. They were led to the conclusion that the learned Judge did not intend to find, as a matter of fact, either that the ship had not sailed on a voyage to Matamoras, or after having so sailed she had deviated from that voyage; but, on the contrary, he condemned her as lawful prize, because she was in prosecution of that voyage with an ulterior destination either for the cargo or ship, or both. The judgment, therefore, did not sustain the inferences of fact which the defendant sought to establish, nor did it sustain his claim of right to prevent the plaintiff from showing the truth in respect of this fact, and the plea was therefore bad. The court were also further of opinion that the eighth plea and rejoinders to the same effect were bad, because the finding of a matter of fact, in the course of the adjudication of a prize court, could not be pleaded as an estoppel in the cases where, if adduced in evidence, the judgment would be received as conclusive evidence of the fact so, found. For these reasons the court gave judgment on the demurrers for the plaintiff.

[From the London Times of February 2, 1865. ]

[Untitled]

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH—Westminster, February 1.

(Sitting in Banco, before Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Mellor.)

THE CASE OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK

THE QUEEN VS. RUMBLE.

The trial of this case, commenced in December, and adjourned on account of the absence of a witness, was resumed and continued. It 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. This case had arisen thus: in November, 1863, 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 year 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 equipping, furnishing, and fitting out of a certain ship called the Victor, otherwise called the Scylla, otherwise called the Rappahannock, with 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 statute in such case made and provided. 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 to 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, &c.; 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 in tent or in order to enlist or enter himself to serve, or with intent to serve, in any warlike or military operations whatever, whether by land or by 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 cases 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 so en-listed, 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 seven as to equipment of vessels:

“That if any person within any part of the Uniteci 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.”

The charges made in the present case, it will be seen, involve 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 are 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. Each count in itself is short and simple enough. Thus, the first count 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.” The length of the indictment arises from the number of the counts, of which there are as many as 166. Of this enormous indictment it will be enough to present a brief but careful analysis: In a general way, it maybe said to be divided under two heads: 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 ten other men. The next sixteen 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 Firth, Ginno, Hurford, Brooks, Bailey, Goode, Newton, Spending 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 come 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 “the 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 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 of indictment was found or presented by a grand jury of Middlesex in last Trinity 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 in December last it 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, Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Talfourd Salter, 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.” The solicitor general, in stating the case to the jury, said this was 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, and it was, he said, 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. And he said he would state the view which the Crown takes upon the construction of the statute. “Their view,’ he said, “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; n 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.” The learned solicitor general then stated the facts thus: In 1857 there was a screw gunboat built for the crown, called the Victor. She carried six guns, was about three hundred and fifty horse-power, and her tonnage was about five hundred 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 and Co., ship-owners 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. 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. 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 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. The learned solicitor general, after observing that probably there never was heard of a more audacious attempt on the part of a belligerent to violate neutral sovereignty and neutral territory, went on to state what part Mr. Rumble, the defendant, took in these matters, and stated that, according to the evidence he should call, he took an active part, if not the principal part, in the equipment of the vessel and procuring for her a crew, and 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 the jury, he said, would 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 Captain Hall, wishing to try the new apparatus for the purpose, consented to allow it to be used. But, inasmuch as the government had no reason to suppose that he knew of the destination of the vessel at that time, they had not thought fit to lay any blame upon him, though they were not at the time aware that this had been done. Mr. Bumble, however, was constantly on board, superintending 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 on the afternoon of the 24th of November, when the vessel left the river, he was on board as late as five 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. Mr. Rumble was then present while the articles were being signed, endeavoring to induce the men to enlist. The learned solicitor general went on to state: The vessel went away from the river on the 24th of November, and three or four days afterwards—about 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 Mr. Rumble was on board the vessel, if not on deck, at the time the captain summoned the crew and engaged them for the service, and he was actually in the cabin when some of the men received the bounty for their enlistment. But the case did not stop even there. Mr. Rumble returned, and, at all events, then he knew the character of the vessel; but even then, 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, 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. Such (said the solicitor general) is an outline of the facts which, as I am instructed, I shall be able to prove. Witnesses were then called in. support of the case thus stated, and the first witness called (to give formal evidence of the sale of the vessel by the government) was Captain Wise, captain-superintendent of Sheerness dock-yard. 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; and, he said, the defendant, Mr. Rumble, had nothing to do with her connected with his duties. It was, however, elicited in cross-examination of this witness that the ship was, after the purchase and at the request of the purchaser, docked at the dockyard, under orders from the admiralty, and with his sanction as captain-superintendent. The witness at first 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 the 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,” which he admitted showed it was after the purchase. Upon this, he said, there was an order to dock the ship, though it could not be done at once. The witness then read the answer, dated the 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. It was further elicited from the witness in cross-examination that the masts were put into her by Captain Hall, captain of the steam reserve, and with the aid of a government ship, the Cumberland; and that her rigging was put up by riggers belonging to the dockyard, but after working hours; that she was at the government moorings, because, as she had no anchor, the owners asked that she might be made fast to a government buoy; and that she was taken out by a government tug—that is, out of dock into the basin; and remained at the government moorings until after she had her masts in her, when she lay at her own anchors. He further admitted that it was well known to every one that she was lying there being fitted out, and it was understood she was going to China; and further that he (the witness) rendered every assistance, and made no objection to the men working on her after working hours. It was not unusual, he said, when a ship had been sold, to render every assistance to her, and he admitted that the inspector of machinery afloat might be disposed to do so. Several of the men mentioned in the indictment as having been enlisted were then called to prove the part taken by the defendant in regard to an engagement or enlistment. The first of them was a man named Firth, who stated that he had been a breaker-up of ships at the dock, and that in the autumn of 1863 he had been engaged to work upon the ship by a Mr. Ferguson, who said he was chief engineer, and was to meet a Mr. Carr before going on board. He, Cole, and Hurford were together, and they were to meet Rumble in the dock-yard at Sheerness—(Carr said, ) and they went to the dock-yard, to the steam reserve office, and met Rumble there. Carr went and spoke to Rumble. They went towards the water-side, and Rumble 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 they. They went on board, and Rumble was there and spoke to Carr. They were then put to work. Carr was second engineer on board the Scylla. Carr ordered witness to go down, and told him to look after the stores. He was engaged upon her till she sailed, and afterwards. Rumble paid the first week’s wages on board the ship, and told him he would allow them a guinea a week while they stopped there. Then witness asked him where she was going. He told witness he didn’t know where she was going to, but if he went away in the ship and lived to come home again he shouldn’t have to work any longer, and he would like to go him halves. The witness continued there three weeks and one or two days—i. e., at Sheerness. Rumble came on board, he said, often, sometimes twice a day, and other days oftener, and told him if he wanted anything on board to let him know. Witness 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. He went away with the vessel between nine and ten on a Tuesday night. On that night he did not see Mr. Rumble on board, but saw him on board that afternoon before they went away. Mr. Ferguson called the men into the cabin, and Rumble was there, and Rumble asked witness if he was going to sign the ship’s articles. Witness told him “Yes.” Rumble offered him £6 a month, and witness asked him for £8. Rumble said, ‘Here’s one of the owners,” (pointing to Mr. Pearson,) “and he can’t afford to give more than £6.” Mr. Pearson then told witness he would give him £8. Witness didn’t, however, sign the articles. Then Rumble told him to go out of the cabin and send his mates in; and he did. That night they went off. Afterwards they agreed with Mr. Ramsay for fourteen days. They went to Calais. He didn’t know where he was going, nor when she was going to start. They sighted Calais about four in the afternoon. Mr. Ramsay commanded the vessel to Calais. They “dodged about” off Calais all night, and 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, and he was told that it was the confederate flag. He remained three or four days on board at Calais, but didn’t like to go in her when he saw the flag. Another captain came—Captain Campbell—and they were called aft and told he was the captain. He asked them to go in her, and some said, “Yes,” and some said “No.” He told them she was a confederate man-of-war, and he would like to have them all go in her. Witness, wouldn’t go. He did not see Rumble on board while at Calais, nor at Calais. The captain next day came on board in uniform—a gray suit. Mr. Rumble paid their expenses on the first occasion from Woolwich to Sheerness. In cross-examination, however, it was elicited from this witness that he was engaged first by Mr. Ferguson, who also engaged Carr as engineer. He never conversed with Rumble about going on board the ship. No repairs, he said, were going on on the Scylla when they went there. Only the cook and Mr. Ramsay were on board, and Mr. Rumble. There was nothing being done at the time. Carr told them 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 they were at the buoy nothing was done but knocking about the boiler. (The object of this, it will be seen, was to show that the defendant Rumble up to that time had only been party to an engagement of men to repair the ship’s boilers or engines, &c. ) Being pressed by Mr. Bovili whether he did not swear before the magistrates that Mr. Ferguson told him to go into the cabin to sign the ship’s articles, the witness said, 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?

Witnes.. 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 Sheerness, 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.

Witness said Ferguson didn’t agree with me as to terms. Then I came to Sheerness and went on board the vessel. Mr. Rumble was there, and nothing was said about wages. The first occasion Mr. Rumble came aboard and ordered all aft. We stood round 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 Is. 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 first spoke to us about articles. Mr. Rumble left the ship soon after.

The next witness was one James Hurford, one of the men mentioned in the indictment. He said, I am a ship-breaker, I was employed last autumn on board the Scylla. I was sent there by Mr. Ferguson. He sent me from Woolwich to Sheerness. I saw at Sheerness Mr. Rumble. No one told me to go to him. I went 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 agreement 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 Woolwich 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 got 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.

In cross-examination the witness said he was told that he was to be leading stoker. He 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, and he 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.” Being pressed, the witness 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.”

In cross-examination it was further 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.

In re-examination the witness 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 more to do with the navigation. At Calais Captain Campbell came, and he supposed Pearson left. He did not see him afterwards. Before starting, he said, Ramsay had acted as captain.

The next witness was the man Coles, whose evidence was this: 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 week’s wages by Mr. Rumble. Some of the men put the question to Mr. Rumble where the ship was going, and 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, representing 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. Bovill. He said that he came 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 m 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. This statement of the witness appeared to excite some surprise among the counsel for the Crown, and Captain Wise ejaculated angrily that it was false, upon which Mr. Bovill rebuked him, and elicited that he was not there at the time, but he stated that it “was not possible,” and that he was sure it could not be the fact.

The Solicitor General. in re-examination, pressed the witness as to when it was he saw the government tug towing out the steamer, and he said firmly and positively that it was the night they left, and when they went out from Sheerness to Calais.

The Lord Chief Justic. examined 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 Genera. pressed him as to when it was.

The Witness. When we went out from Sheerness to Calais; the night we left. (The next witness also, it will be seen, was examined as to the government tugs then engaged.)

The next witness was the man Newman, who 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 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. Rumble) 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. 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.

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

Witnes. 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. D. you know that Mr. Rumble’s son is in the Mediterranean, in the Wizard gunboat?

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

Mr. Bovill. Where is Mr. Greathead?

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

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

The Lord Chief Justic. 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. Bovil. 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 depositions, but they did not disclose that these persons were present.

Mr. Lus. pointed out that they did not disclose that young Rumble was present.

Mr. Bovil. said he had not observed it; if he had he should have applied for a post ponement of the trial..

The witness was then re-examined as to the tugs, with a view to show that there were only two tugs in the harbor, and that, as 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, as far as he knew.

Mr. Bovil. was allowed, however, 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 Justic. 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 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 trial then is to be adjourned till the sittings after next term in February. The jury will take care to keep their minds in the mean time free from all impressions upon the case.

Mr. Bovil. 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 Genera. said he had no doubt the admiralty would do so. The trial was then accordingly adjourned until February, and it now came on to be continued, the same counsel appearing as before.

Only eleven jurors, however, appeared, and

The Lord Chief Justice. upon taking his seat, asked counsel if they had any objection to try with the eleven.

The Solicitor Genera. said that, on the part of the Crown, he had no objection.

Mr. Bovil. said he was not quite sure whether consent in a criminal case would avail.

The Lord Chief Justice. That may, perhaps, be doubtful.

It now turned out that there being two gentlemen of the same, or almost the same, name, one of whom had been upon the jury, the other had by a mistake been summoned for this occasion.

The Lord Chief Justice. S. we have got the wrong man upon the jury. (A laugh.) I am afraid we cannot go on under these circumstances, as there is a great doubt about con-gent in a criminal case. All we can do is to fix another day upon which the right juror may be summoned. And the question is, what day shall be appointed? But I cannot displace all the other business of the sittings.

One of the jurors here said: My Lord, I have to leave town on Monday on important business, and cannot possibly be present. I had rather pay the fine.

The Lord Chief Justice. Ah, you should not have said that, sir; it may oblige me to increase the fine. (A laugh.) However, we will try to arrange it if we can.

The Solicitor General. It really is a very unfortunate state of things. I need hardly repeat that on the part of the Crown I should be quite willing to try the case out with eleven jurors, though I am fully sensible that we cannot expect my learned friend to consent.

Mr. Bovill. No; it is a very important case, and we are anxious to have the advantage of a full jury. Moreover, I doubt if we could consent in a criminal case. It might be ground of error that the verdict was given by eleven jurors.

The Lord Chief Justice. Then, we will do this: the jury shall retire while I send a special messenger for the absent juror, and then the case can go on when he comes.

The parties and the jurors appeared very well satisfied with this arrangement, and ex-pressed their grateful assent to it.

The jury accordingly retired, and another case was taken, the case mentioned below.

After the lapse of more than an hour the messenger returned and announced that the juror could not be found.

The Lord Chief Justic. announced that to the jury, and proposed to postpone the case until to-morrow, (this day.)

To this the jury and the parties assented, and the jury were accordingly discharged for the day, and desired to attend to-morrow, (this day,) when the case will be proceeded with.

[From the London Times of February 3, 1865.]

[Untitled]

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH—Westminster, February 2.

(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, the 59th of George III, cap, 69, containing charges both as to the equipping of a war steamer called the Scylla for the confederate service and the enlisting of men to serve in her. The first ten counts charged the defendant with an offence under the second section, in hiring, &c, one James Maloney. The following 110 counts charged him with a similar offence in hiring, &c, eleven other men. The next sixteen counts charged him with counselling and procuring four persons therein named to enlist and enter themselves to be employed in the confederate service, and the remaining thirty counts charged him, under the seventh section, with equipping, furnishing, &c, or assisting in equipping, &c, or attempting to equip, &c, the vessel. Altogether there were 166 counts in the indictment, the number arising partly from the necessity of meeting the numerous words of the statute, and partly by reason of there being separate offences charged as to enlisting twelve different men, as well as the distinct offences charged as to the four men, and also as to the equipping of the vessel. The defendant pleaded “Not guilty.”

The solicitor general, Mr. Lush, Queen’s, counsel, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. W. V. Harcourt appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Bovill, Queen’s counsel, Mr. Karslake, Queen’s counsel, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Giffard, Mr. Macnamara, and Mr. Talfourd Salter were for the defendant.

The trial commenced in December, when it was adjourned on account of the absence of material witnesses. It was recommenced yesterday, when it was again adjourned on account of the absence of a juror.

The jury having now all assembled, the lord chief justice proceeded to read over his notes of the evidence taken on the last occasion, which, as we gave it rather fully yesterday, we need not now repeat. His lordship’s note of the evidence on account of which the case was adjourned was as follows. It was in the evidence of the witness Newman: “Mr. Great-head was present, and said to the defendant, ‘This is the young man I spoke to you about.’ The defendant asked me in what capacity. Witness said, ‘As leading fireman,’ and that he had been in the United States’ service. The defendant said he thought I should be a useful man. He said he was going to London to see the confederate agent, and he would drop me & note. His son was present, and he said something as to dropping the defendant a note. Both Mr. Greathead and the defendant’s son were present.”

It was on account of the absence of Mr. Greathead and young Mr. Rumble that the case had been adjourned, and Mr. Bovili stated that his client had obtained the attendance of both these gentlemen, and they were ready to be examined.

The solicitor general then proceeded with the case for the Crown.

The next witness called was one Bailey, a boiler-maker, who had been engaged for the Rappahannock at Sheerness, and stated that he and one Gifford and seven others went with one Bagshawe (who, it turned out, was a leading boiler-maker in Sheerness dock-yard) to Rumble’s house, and that Bagshawe went in and came out with some bank notes, which he gave to Gifford, who distributed them among the men to pay their expenses, and they went to Calais. He said he saw Mr. Rumble on board the boat on the passage to Calais. They arrived at Calais at night, and then went on board the Victor, or Rappahannock, as she was then called, and he worked on the tubes of the boilers, the chief engineer (Ferguson) setting him to work and directing him. He only went, he said, to repair the boilers, and then to go back. He remained on board three days, and then returned, and he did not see Mr. Rumble on board. He left, he said, because, “he did not like the ship’s provisions.” He then saw Mr. Rumble at Dover, who asked him why he came back, and witness told him, upon which Mr. Rumble said he thought he was foolish for coming back, and asked him if he would return to the ship, to which witness answered that he would not, as the “job did not seem satisfactory;” and as he again mentioned the provisions, Mr. Rumble said that if he liked to go back he should have £10 for fresh provisions. Witness still refused, and went back to Sheerness, and did not return to Calais. The cross-examination of this witness was directed mainly to show that the party with whom he went were all boiler-makers, and the witness said that they were, in fact, a “gang of boiler-makers who went over for a job,” Gifford being their “leading man.” It appeared that the boilers were in a very bad state, and to complete the job would take about two months’ time. And it was elicited that Bagshawe was and is leading boiler-maker in Sheerness dock-yard, and knew witness and the other boiler-makers, most of whom had worked in the yard; and it appeared that witness was now working in Woolwich dock-yard. It was elicited that some one had taken the witness to the American consul after his return from Calais, and being asked who took him there, he said he did not know him, but he was a “gray-whiskered man, whose name was Spencer,” and who treated him to drink and gave him a sovereign. There was also a good deal of cross examination about one O’Kelly, who, it appeared, had treated the witness and others of the men a good deal. In conclusion, it was elicited that Bagshawe was at the inquiry at Sitting bourne, but that he had not been seen here to-day.

The next witness was one Thomas Keppell, an assistant carpenter, who stated that in October last, from information he had received, he went to the house of Mr. Rumble, and said he understood that the defendant wanted men for the Scylla (as she was then called,) and the defendant said she was bound for China, and witness could go as steward, and afterwards the defendant sent him on board, telling him to go on board, and that defendant would meet him there, as he did, and introduced him to one Mr. Ramsay, who was then understood to be captain, as “his” steward. (It was not quite clear what this meant—whether Rumble’s or Ramsay’s.) The defendant, he said, came on board daily at Sheerness, often accompanied by Mr. Greathead, who was in the government service. Mr. Rumble was merely acting, he said, “as a kind of shipping master.” The ship, he said, went away in a hurry.

Mr. Bovil. objected. She was to go on Wednesday, and she went on Tuesday night.

The witness went on to state that she went away late—half past eleven at night, and there was great confusion on board.

The Lord Chief Justic.. How long before did you know she was going?

Witness. Not until we were all “piped on deck.” He went on to say that the police had been on board that day, and that Mr. Rumble also had been there; and he had given orders and acted as master, but not that witness heard that day.

The Lord Chief Justice. What did the police come on board for?

Witness. T. see if there were any government stores on board. He went on to say that Mr. Rumble used to give orders as to the management of the vessel, and was there the very evening she started, and only about an hour or so before she started. She was towed out, he said, by a government steamer and a private steamer. The government tug was one used at the dock-yard. The vessel went out of Sheerness harbor about midnight, and stayed at Dover, and next day went to Calais, and when in sight of Calais hoisted the confederate flag; and the old name Victor was painted out on its way, and the new name, the Rappahannock, was painted on. He did not see Mr. Rumble at Calais for several weeks, but then saw him on board the vessel, along with Mr. Ramsay, who was in a gray uniform, and was in command of the vessel until Captain Campbell came, who then assumed the command, and it was said that the vessel was to be a “Confederate States steamer”—“a war steamer,” and witness then signed articles.

In cross-examination the witness said he had wished to go to China, and thought he was going there.

The Lord Chief Justice. That is, when you were first engaged? You did not think that when you signed articles?

Witness. No. He went on to say that the confederate flag was made in the course of the voyage to Calais, and it was made by one of the men who had been a government rigger. He further repeated that a government tug helped to tow the vessel out, and that the master rigger and other of the government officials had been busy in getting the vessel off, and that nothing was said about her being a confederate war steamer until she “sighted” Calais. And until he signed articles he had no idea of enlisting in the confederate service.

The Lord Chief Justice. What? not when you saw the confederate flag flying, and were told she was to be a confederate steamer?

Witness. It’ was a matter of compulsion then. But before then I had no idea of going into the confederate service. When he went on board he said Mr. Rumble saw Mr. Ramsay, and introduced witness to him, saying, “Here is your steward.” It was then elicited that the witness had been at the American consul’s and had seen Kelly there.

Mr. Bovill. How came you to go to the American consul’s?

Witness. T. make a statement.

Mr. Bovill. Ho. came you to go there to make a statement?

Witness. I understood from some of the witnesses that it was the place to go to.

Mr. Bovill. Did you hear that some of them had a sovereign?

Witness. No. That I will swear. It was further elicited that he asked for a ship, and that this was one of his objects in going there; the other object was to make a statement. He was pressed as to which he did first—ask for a ship or make a statement, and whether he was not on the look-out for a ship. Several other men, he said, had told him to go to the American consul’s. He was pressed to name them, and mentioned Firth (one of the witnesses) and Friend. It was elicited that witness had “treated” Kelly and been “treated” by him.

Mr. Bovill. Now. a word as to the time of the ship starting. Pray, is there anything unusual in a ship starting at night?

Witness. No; but there was in that, though.

Mr. Bovill. What time did she leave?

Witness. About midnight.

Mr. Bovill. Now. do you mean to say that Mr. Rumble was on board within an hour of that time?

Witness. Yes, he was.

He was then pressed as to whether he had not on the preliminary inquiry stated that Mr. Rumble left at five in the afternoon, and he admitted that he had, and that he had not said he ever returned. His statement, he said, was made at the American consul’s, when one Warner was there. He had been there several times, and always saw Warner there, a man who had had his discharge from the dock-yard. Being pressed as to whether Mr. Rumble had returned on the night of departure after 5 o’clock, he said he had; and being asked if he had ever stated that before, he admitted that he had not. It was elicited that there was to be a lecture delivered that evening by Mr. Rumble, at Sheerness—a lecture on the Habits and Customs of the Chinese. (A laugh. ) It was again elicited that there was a government tug engaged when the vessel left Sheerness, although she was not attached to the vessel, and merely showed her the way, and this, he said, “attracted his attention.”

It was elicited in the re-examination by the solicitor general that the government steamer was “two or three knots ahead of the vessel,” that is, he added, nine or ten yards. (A laugh.) The other tug towed the vessel out; the government steamer “showed the way.”

The Solicitor General. Why did you not, when you were at the American consul’s, say that Mr. Rumble came back that night?

Witness. Because I did not think of it. I did not think of it until this morning. He went below, where I was, and I saw him below. He returned again about ten o’clock.

The next witness was a man named Shaw, who stated he had gone to Mr. Rumble and said, “I hear you are engaging stokers for the Victor,” (as the vessel was then called,) and he answered, “Yes, she wants five or six stokers,” and he put questions to the witness as to his having been to sea, &c, observing that the ship belonged to a friend of his, and that he could not take upon himself to engage men then, but he did not think there would be any difficulty about it, and that, he and the others had better go on board and see the chief engineer, Mr. Ferguson. He afterwards went on board, with others, and saw Ramsay and Pearson, Ferguson, and afterwards saw Rumble, who asked what Ferguson had said, and added that he expected the owner there, “ and afterwards he introduced the witness and another to Pearson, the owner. Pearson said “they would be under canvas two-thirds of the way to China.” In the result, the witness and several others agreed to join, and Rumble came and said he would see to the remittance of wages to the men’s wives, adding, “There are other privileges and ways of making money besides good pay;” and Pearson stated that they were going on a trial trip; that there would he clothes served out to the men before long. It appeared that the men had pressed for higher wages than were offered, and got £6 or £7, or £7 10s., a month, instead of £5; and Pearson told one of them not to say what he had, or they would have half the people in Sheerness on board. There was ultimately, however, an altercation between the men and Ramsay, and they declined to sign the articles, “seeing how things were going on,” and they then left. They afterwards went to Mr. Rumble, who said, “Now I know what you men want, you would greatly oblige me by going away.” They said, “We don’t know whether we have done right or wrong, but thought we had better see you for a little advice;” and he said, “I cannot instruct you privately, but you’ll have instructions both to your own satisfaction and more too, and you’d greatly oblige me by going away.” In January (after the inquiry) they wrote a note to him, in which, it appeared, they said that he did not engage them as firemen for the Rappahannock, and that the captain was the only man they made any agreement with; and they afterwards saw him, and he asked them if such were their statements, which they would swear to, and they replied that they were, and that “they would swear it in the presence of two witnesses,” named Parkes and Royston, (who were present, ) and they, in the result, went away.

In cross-examination the witness said he had heard that men sometimes made money on voyages to China otherwise than by wages. And he was told that the vessel was going on a trial trip, and he was only to be engaged for fourteen days, which would not suit him, and therefore he declined to go.

The next witness was a man named Thompson, who, on the 27th of November, saw Mr. Rumbk at Sheerness, the ship having then gone away, and that, after having been engaged for the ship—then at Calais—he was told by Mr. Rumble, “You won’t want clothes; the uniform is gray; there is plenty of cloth on board ship, and it can be made up there when you get over there”—that is, at Calais. In the result the witness was not engaged, and in January last year, (which was after the inquiry,) Mr. Rumble, the witness said, asked him to write a note testifying that he (Rumble) had not engaged him, and he afterwards got them to acknowledge the note before the two persons mentioned by the last witness, Parkes and Royston. The note which the witness had signed was produced, and ran thus, addressed to Mr. Rumble: “We have not been engaged by you, or any one connected with her Majesty’s government, to serve on board the Rappahannock.” Mr. Rumble said, “Will you swear to that?” and he said he would.

Mr. Bovill. That is, that the contents were true?

Witness. No. I did not mean that, although I said so.

Mr. Bovill. Oh ! then you sometimes say one thing and mean another?

Witness. Not often.

The Lord Chief Justice. In this particular instance?

Witness. I had a motive.

Mr. Bovill. Oh ! you sometimes have a motive for making your statements, have you

Witness. Nothing but the truth, I hope.

Mr. Bovill. Oh! I dare say. We shall see. Pray, were you offered five hundred dollars to make a certain statement?

Witness. No. never. Being pressed as to whether Warne had not offered him money, he said “No.” Being asked if he had not pressed Mr. Rumble for money, he said, “No.” It was then elicited that he had been twice at the American consul’s, and met Warne there, the man who had been discharged from the dock-yard. He said he went to the consul’s “to make a statement.” Being further pressed, the witness went on to State that he had said that he “would tell no more lies about it, but would tell the truth.”

Mr. Bovill. What! you had been telling lies, then?

Witness. Yes, I had.

Mr. Bovill. Did not Mr. Rumble accuse you of telling lies?

Witness. No. I told lies in his favor. (Laughter.)

The witness went on to state that he had gone up to the consul’s with Hall and Shaw, and they saw Warne and had dinner with him, and his expenses. He had heard that men had money from Beardsall, who was a fitter in the dock-yard, and he himself had money from Beardsall, which, as he understood, came from Mr. Rumble., Being pressed further, he said the note he had written to Mr. Rumble was a lie; and he heard from Mr. Rumble that any man mixed up in the affair would be discharged from the dock-yard.

Mr. Bovill. Well, you were asked if you could swear to that note, were you not, and you said you could?

Witness. Yes; but it was all a lie, a bare-faced falsehood. (Laughter.) He said this was before the preliminary inquiry.

The wife of the last witness was called to confirm him as to Rumble’s statement to him, in her presence, that “there would be plenty of cloth on board to make the gray uniforms.”

It was elicited in cross-examination that this witness had not been examined since “a little before Christmas,” the present trial having begun on the 5th of December.

The next witness was one Hall, a “hammerman,” who stated that on the 16th of November he saw Rumble at Sheerness, who told him that he was engaging men for the Scylla, as she was then called. He gave similar evidence to show as to the note he had signed, stating that Mr. Rumble had not engaged or attempted to engage. In cross-examination the witness stated he had signed it, and had been asked if it was true, but he now said “it was all lies.” When asked if he had been at the American consul’s the witness was silent, and it was not until after some time, during which he was again and again asked, that he answered that he had been there.

Mr. Bovill. Do you know how long you have been in answering that question?

Witness. Three minutes.

Mr. Boville. Why did you hesitate so long in answering?

Witness. (After a pause. ) I wanted to be certain; it is so long ago.

Mr. Bovill. S. long ago ! You wanted to be certain. How came you to go there?

Witness said “Through Beardsall;” through what he said.

The Lord Chief Justice. Through what he said, do you mean; not by his direction?

Witness. No. of my own accord.

Mr. Bovill. Was your statement taken down?

Witness again hesitated some time, and then said it was. All their statements were taken down.

Mr. Bovill. What made you hesitate?

Witness. (Again hesitating. ) Because I wanted to be certain that I understood you.

Being pressed as to how he came to go to the consul’s, he admitted that he had seen Warne at Thompson’s before he had gone. Being asked if Warne had offered him $500 to make a statement, he denied itr or that he had heard it rumored that Warne would give money for a statement.

Mr. Harcourt. in re-examination, desired to have it understood that it was not at Beard-sail’s instigation the witness went to the consul’s, and proposed to examine into that point, but

The Lord Chief Justic. said he thought this was sufficiently understood already, and it need not be entered into further.

A man named Newton was called to prove that at Calais, after Captain Campbell came on board, he was called down into the cabin and paid by Ramsay, the defendant Mr. Rumble being there at the time. Witness and others then went home.

It was elicited in cross-examination that Mrs. Rumble also was there.

In re-examination it was elicited that there were officers on board.

By the Lord Chief Justice. Some of them were in uniform?

It was further elicited that then it was well known that the vessel was a confederate ship? and some of the men went away, and some remained.

The Lord Chief Justice. How long was Mr. Rumble on board?

The witness could not say, not having seen him come or go.

The Lord Chief Justice. You saw officers, you say, some of them in uniform. When did they come?

Witness. A. soon as we got alongside at Calais.

The Lord Chief Justice. Did you take them as officers?

Witness. Yes; they took charge of the ship, and acted as officers.

The Lord Chief Justice. Was the confederate flag flying at the time Mr. Rumble was on board?

Witness. Yes, it was.

At this point the court adjourned.