Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

[From the London Times of February 4, 1865.]

[Untitled]

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, February 3, 1865.

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

THE CASE OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK.

THE QUEEN VS. RUMBLE.

This was the third day of the trial of this case—an indictment under the foreign enlistment act, against an officer in her Majesty’s dock-yard at Sheerness, for assisting in the manning and equipping of a vessel-of-war, with intent that she should be engaged in the service of the Confederate States. The indictment contains, first, the charges under the former of these heads, the manning; and next, the charges under the other head, the equipment. There are 110 counts, (in sets each of ten counts,) charging that the defendant pro-cured, or attempted to procure, eleven men, named Maloney, Firth, Ginno, Hurford, Brooks, Bailey, Goode, Newton, Spencliff, Thompson, Hall and Shaw, to enlist in the service; and there are sixteen more counts, charging that he counselled four of them (Maloney, Brooks, Goode and Newton) to enlist and serve. Then there are thirty counts, charging that, as in [Page 143] the Alexandra case, he equipped, furnished or fitted out, or attempted to equip, furnish or fit out, the vessel in question for the confederate service. The trial, which began in December, was resumed yesterday, when the case for the Crown was continued, and Bailey Newton, Thompson, Hall and Shaw (all of them mentioned in the indictment) were examined, and to-day the case for the Crown continued.

The solicitor-general, Mr. Lush, Q. C, Mr. Hannen and Mr. W. V. Harcourt, appeared for the Crown; Mr. Bovili, Q. C., Mr. Karslake, Q. C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Macnamara, Mr. Gifrard and Mr. T. Salter were for the defence.

The first witness called to-day was the man Ginno, (one of those mentioned in the indictment,) who went to Calais, and said he saw Mr. Rumble there, and also on board. He was engaged, he said, as a stoker, and Rumble paid him first on board the ship, and paid others of the men. He joined the ship a fortnight before she started, and he and others were at work cleaning the boilers. Mr. Rumble, he said, came on board at different times, but the witness did not hear him give any orders. When the ship started she was not fit to go to sea, and he did not know she was going until the morning of the day she started. There were, he said, plenty of provisions on board, several sheep and calves, and plenty of bread; and at Calais the officers were in uniform.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill.

I did not know that she was a confederate vessel until we were crossing to Calais. I suppose there were plenty of provisions on board. I should think there were about 100 tons of coal on board. She would consume twenty-five tons a day. That would be only enough for a trial trip. When she went to sea she was not fit, because the water would not keep in the boilers, as all the tubes wanted refitting. At Calais, after I left the ship, I knew O’Kelly under the name of Williams. When Mr. Rumble paid me the sovereign he may have said that the owner was away, and had asked him to pay us.

Richard Spencliff,examined by Mr. Hannen, said that he was a. stoker, and got a character from Mr. Rumble in order to get on board the Scylla. He saw Mr. Rumble on board three or four hours before the vessel started. He was looking after government stores. He also proved the facts sworn to by other witnesses, as to the captain coming on board and mustering the men and endeavoring to enlist them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Karslake.

The police were on board at the same time as Mr. Rumble, looking after government stores. That was the last time I saw Mr. Rumble.

The Lord Chief Justice. Was the state of the boilers known before you left, or was it known only when you were on the passage?

Witness. We only found it out on the passage. I did not know that we were going to Calais when we left Sheerness.

James Maloney, examined by Mr. V. Harcourt. [This was the first man mentioned in the indictment.] I saw Mr. Rumble at his house, and asked him if he was shipping men for the Scylla. He said I could go out as a fireman on board the ship. Then I went on board. I was at work a week before she went away. Mr. Rumble paid me the week’s wages in his own house. A Mr. Howe paid the other men, but told me, to go to Mr. Rumble. I saw Mr. Rumble on board three or four times. I went to Calais with the ship, but only stayed two days with her there, and then went away for two days. While I was away I saw Mr. Rumble. Brooks was with me. I asked him if I could go to work on board her as a boiler-maker. Mr. Ramsay was with Mr. Rumble. Mr. Rumble asked Mr. Ramsay what sort of men we were. He said he had no fault to find. Mr. Rumble then said, “Then you can go down to work.” I remained about fourteen days working at the boilers. The captain paid me for seven days’ work only. I then came back to Sheerness. I afterwards went to Mr. Rumble’s house and asked him for my pay. He said he didn’t know anything about me. Mr. Brown, the owner of the ship should have paid me. He said he would meet me at the Fountain hotel. He didn’t come there, so I went to his house again. He said he had been poorly and couldn’t come down. He then gave me a sovereign. His wife was there. I took the sovereign. My wages were £1 5s. 8d. The same evening I went to Mr. Howe’s. He gave me £1 5s. 8d, I then went back to Mr. Rumble, and gave him back the sovereign he had given me.

In cross-examination, the witness confessed that the sovereign was given to him by Mr. Rumble until he could get his wages, he being at the time out of work. He also said that Mr. Rumble said he never engaged him at all, and then he threatened to summon him. He had had 10s. a week, since then, in order to keep him at Sheerness. He always understood they were going a trial trip.

James Brooks was then called, and examined by the solicitor general: I went aboard the Scylla as leading fireman, when she was at Sheerness. Captain Ramsay paid me my wages; I can’t say whether Mr. Rumble ever paid me. Maloney and I left because we didn’t like the color of the flag. I remember meeting two gentlemen, one of whom was Mr. Ramsay; I don’t know whether the other was Mr. Rumble.

[Page 144]

In cross-examination, the witness said that he knew O’Kelly, and had had drink at his expense in pretty nearly every public house in Sheerness; he had also received 12s. 6d. a week since he came back.

By the Lord Chief Justice.

I am out of pocket, because I am a seafaring man and can’t get work on shore.

The next witness called was James Goode, another of the men mentioned in the indictment.

Examined by Mr. Hannen.

I went out to Calais, and worked for three weeks on the Rappahannock. I received the wages from Mr. Rumble when I came back.

The Solicitor Genera. then said that he did not want to examine O’Kelly; but as his name had been very frequently mentioned, he would call him, in order that Mr. Bovili might have an opportunity of cross-examining him.

Mr. O’Kelly, about whom there has been a great deal of cross-examination as to his treating witnesses, &c, was then called, and after a considerable interval, appeared.

Upon his appearance, however, the solicitor general said: I have no questions to ask you.

Mr. Bovill. Nor have I. [A laugh.]

Neither side caring to examine this person, he retired from the box.

The Solicitor Genera. then said: Then, that is the case for the Crown.

Mr. Bovil. then addressed the jury for Mr. Rumble. He said that the case was brought there by the government; but really, the prosecutors were the federal government. If the prosecution were really by the government there would not have been that disgraceful exposé that there had been of a means of getting evidence which would not be tolerated an instant in a prosecution by the government. The prosecution was really instituted by the Federal government, in order to get a case against the British government. What a case they would have, if in any way they could prove that a government officer had been engaged in fitting out a confederate cruiser ! And what means they have taken to prove the case ! The learned counsel then called attention to the proceedings of O’Kelly and Warne in getting the evidence of witnesses, who were first, well plied with drink. Would these witnesses give correct evidence? Would not this constant plying with drink and payment of 12s. 6d. a week tend to prejudice their minds? This prejudice appeared in the way the gave their evidence; they suppressed everything favorable to Mr. Rumble—in fact, distorted everything in favor of their own case. Innocent expressions were by this means made damnatory. Again, the government depended entirely on the federal agents, and these agents would not let a witness appear who could say anything in Mr. Rumble’s favor. But what was the case? This vessel while lying at the government buoy was bought by Mr. Pearson, or Mr. Coleman, who probably from the first intended it for the confederate service. Of course, with such an object, his first care would be to conceal his design. If he had taken the vessel to a private dock-yard, the federal agents would immediately have received intelligence, but if they could get her fitted out in the government dock-yard no suspicions would be excited. He accordingly applies to the government to let her be docked at Sheerness; his request is granted, and the vessel is brought in by a government tug from the government moorings to the government dock-yard, and there she is attended to by the government officials; she is then taken out again by a government tug, and then she is masted and rigged, still by the government officers; in fact, every one at the dock-yard did all he could for the ship, and then this letter is sent to Mr. Rumble:

“Dear Sir. Will you please undertake, for us, the management of the doing of the repairs of the steamer Víctor, we undertaking to pay all the expenses of what is necessary to be done?”

That was written to him by the owners, and he naturally acceded to it. Is it to be supposed that, when every one is doing his best, from the lords of the admiralty to Mr. Wise, with his government tug, that Mr. Rumble should refuse to do anything in his power? Of course, he did assist. There is no pretence for saying that there was any armament, and Mr. Rumble, like the rest, knew nothing of the ship being for the confederate service; they supposed she was going for a trial trip. Then she starts, and here we have her taken out by a government tug, under the orders of Captain Wise, according to the evidence of two witnesses. Here we have the officials doing their best until the last moment, all of them supposing her present destination to be a trial trip, and ultimate destination China. Then Mr. Rumble is accused of engaging the men, and it turns out that he had nothing to do with the greater part of them; and with others, here is the letter authorizing and requesting him to do what he could. It is said that Mr. Rumble came on board just before she left, and that the vessel had a quantity of coal and provisions. We all know that 150 tons of coal would not last more than three or four days, so she could not go on service.

The Lord Chief Justic. observed that this might be used against him, as it might be said there was not enough coal to go on a trial trip.

Mr. Bovill. There can be no doubt that every one imagined she was going on a trial trip; no one had any idea of her going as a confederate cruiser. She had no armament. If she was going for a trial trip, or Mr. Rumble imagined that she was going for a trial trip, if he had [Page 145] engaged every sailor and every fireman on board he would have done no wrong; it would have been perfectly lawful for him to do so. Does not the evidence satisfy you that Mr. Rumble had no knowledge but the knowledge of every soul on board that she was going on a trial trip and nothing else? When they get off Calais, they hoist the confederate flag, which, by-the-bye, they are obliged to make on board; afterwards the captain comes on beard, and then, certainly, the Victor and Scylla became the Rappahannock of the confederate navy As to any equipment in Calais, with that we have nothing to do; the statute only applies to the United Kingdom. You must not be led to think that, because Mr. Rumble may have had something to do with fitting out the ship before she went to Calais, he knew what she was going to be when she was over there; nor, on the other hand, would it be sufficient to show that he was ever concerned in a warlike equipment at Calais, for, under the statute, the offence must be committed in this country, and the offence required an intent to contravene the statute, and an intent in this country to do so. Therefore, neither act done here without the intent, nor acts abroad even with such intent, would suffice to sustain the indictment. Again, as to enlistment, the statute only applies to “soldiers, sailors, or marines,” and there was no evidence here of any such enlistment, for the persons mentioned in the evidence were only stokers, &c, boiler-makers, and the like. That point of the indictment, therefore, failed.

The Lord Chief Justice. That point arose in the case of the Queen vs. Jones, which was tried before me at Liverpool at the last assizes, and it was reserved; and on account of the great importance of the question I should take a similar course here, and reserve the point. But for the purpose of to-day I shall tell the jury that the term “sailor” includes all persons employed in the navigation of the ship.

Mr. Bovil. went on to urge that there was no evidence that any one man was engaged or enlisted until the vessel got to Calais. Until then no one supposed that there was to be any engagement in the confederate service. It was impossible, therefore, that the defendant could have caused any one here to enlist in the confederate service.

The Lord Chief Justice. I shall tell the jury that anything that took place at Calais can only be considered so far as it may throw light upon other matters which are stated to have occurred here.

Mr. Bovil. then went on to urge that, even as to the acts of employment or engagement here, the men were engaged or employed not by the defendant but by Ferguson or by Ramsay. As to the statement of the witness Newman that the defendant had said he was going to call on the confederate agent, happily this was stated to have been in the presence of two other persons—Mr. Greathead and young Mr. Rumble—both of whom would be called to contradict the statement. Unfortunately, as it was a criminal case, the defendant could not be called as a witness, but in this instance, owing to the adjournment of the trial by the lord chief justice (in his anxiety for truth and justice) he had been able to obtain the attendance of these two persons, who could distinctly contradict the witness in this statement. As to the statement that one Bagshawe, after going into the house of Mr. Rumble, had given the men money at Sheerness, it was sought to be inferred that he had it from Mr. Rumble. But why was not Bagshawe called to prove it? He was in the employment of the government, and they could have called him if they had pleased to do so. And why was not Gifford called, who was the foreman of the gang of boiler-makers engaged on the steamer at Sheerness? As the defendant could not be called, the Crown should have called all witnesses who could state the truth of the matter. There was another point on which, fortunately, the defendant was in a position to adduce evidence to contradict the testimony of the only witness who stated that Mr. Rumble was on board the ship late on the night of its departure. It would be proved that at the time he was delivering a lecture on the habits of the Chinese; and that, therefore, the statement was an utter fabrication—the result (like so much more of the evidence) of American gold, corruption, and bribery. The learned counsel denounced with energy the prosecution as an American one; and the conduct of which—out of court— in some degree he suspected to have been confided to American agents. It might be asked what took Mr. Rumble to Calais? This question he would answer easily, and the answer he could sustain by proof. The fact was, that the vessel went away without paying the men, and he went over to secure their payment—whether he felt or expressed sympathy with the confederates was quite immaterial; nay, whether he actually aided them at Calais was equally immaterial, for it would be no breach of the statute, as an act committed abroad. The learned counsel then went on to read the statement made by the defendant, which, he explained, he was only permitted to use by the assent of the solicitor general, whose conduct of the prosecution, so far as he was concerned, was creditable to himself and to the Crown. [The statements of the defendant were read as already given.] The learned counsel then went on to press upon the jury what credible satisfactory evidence there was to falsify these statements, and convict the defendant? Was evidence satisfactory and credible which came from such, tainted sources, and had been obtained by such unworthy means? Not that he imputed these practices to any one connected with the government, but to the secret promoters of the prosecution—those American agents who were in the background, but had been at the bottom of the whole affair, and had really got it up, probably with a view to fasten on this country responsibility for the acts of confederate cruisers.” There had evidently been treating of the witnesses, and all sorte of tricks and artifices to get them to come up to the mark, and the [Page 146] jury, he submitted, could not rely safely on such testimony. He admitted that there might be circumstances of suspicion; but suspicion was not enough, and if there was any reasonable doubt they were bound to acquit the defendant.

At the conclusion of the learned counsel’s address the case was adjourned, and it is clear that it must last all to-morrow (Saturday.)

[From the London Times of February 6, 1865.]

[Untitled]

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, February 4, 1865.

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

THE CASE OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK.

THE QUEEN VS. RUMBLE.

This was the fourth and last day of the trial of this case, an indictment under the foreign enlistment act against an officer in her Majesty’s dock-yard at Sheerness, for having been concerned in the manning and equipping a war steamer for the confederate service—a trial which, it will be seen, has ended in a verdict of acquittal. The vessel, a gunboat of five hundred tons burden, was sold by the admiralty in November, 1863, to a mercantile firm, Messrs. Coleman & Co., who, however, it appeared, really purchased for one Pearson. The ostensible purchaser, however, and the only parties who appeared to be known to the admiralty in the transaction, were Coleman & Co., at whose request some assistance was rendered at the dock-yard for her repairs. Her boilers were in a bad state, and for a fortnight after the sale men were engaged in her repairing them. The defendant, who was inspector of machinery afloat, was acquainted with the real purchaser, Pearson, (who, as it turned out, had purchased the vessel for the purpose of her being taken into the confederate service, ) and was constantly on board with him and one Ramsay, who appeared to have acted as temporary commander, and one Ferguson, the chief engineer. Several persons in inferior capacities in the dock-yard service, particularly two persons named Bagshawe, a boiler-maker, and Beardsall, a fitter, were in constant communication with the defendant, and men were engaged to go “on a trial trip,” the ultimate destination given out being China. The vessel was to start on her “trial trip” on Wednesday, the 25th of November, but started at midnight on Tuesday, the 24th, a government tug showing her the way. She dodged about Dover, and next day got to Calais. On the voyage, the name—which had been originally the Victor, and was first altered to the Scylla—was changed to the Rappahannock, and the confederate flag was hoisted. A Captain Campbell and a number of officers in gray uniform came on board at Calais and took the command. It was not quite clear whether the defendant went with her; but he was on board the night she started, and was at Calais soon after she got there, and it was proved that he was there in the cabin—when the confederate flag was flying, and the confederate captain on board—while the men were being paid. He admitted, however, having interested himself in getting men on board to repair the boilers; and his account of it was that he went over to Calais, as she had gone away suddenly, to see that they were paid; and, though it was sworn that he had said at Sheerness he was going to see the confederate agent, that (it will be seen) was denied. In the result the French government stopped the ship at Calais, and our government ordered an inquiry before the magistrates which was conducted by Mr. V. Harcourt, and which resulted in the present prosecution, in which the defendant was first charged with causing to be engaged in the confederate service twelve men—Maloney, Firth, Brook, Bailey, Gunn, Hurford, Newman, &c, most of whom have been called and examined as witnesses. It is due to the defendant to say that owing to the length of our report on Saturday the statements he sent to the admiralty, and which, by consent of the counsel for the Crown, were read by his counsel, were unavoidably omitted. It was after these letters that an inquiry took place before the magistrates, which resulted in this prosecution, and it transpired that the men had been taken to the American consul’s, and made statements there. The witnesses for the prosecution were severely cross-examined as to certain treating which they confessed to have shared at the hands of one O’Kelly, who was called on Friday, but whom both sides declined to examine, and it is due to those who conducted the prosecution on the part of the Crown to state that it was not at all suggested that this man acted in connexion with them; and, on the contrary, it appeared that, from the admiralty—through the hands of their respectable solicitors at Rochester—the witnesses only received the usual and proper “subsistence money” to which witnesses are entitled who are detained in this country, and so deprived of wages. It will be remembered that in December the trial was adjourned on account of the absence of two persons (young Mr. Rumble and one Greathead,) in whose presence one of the witnesses, a man named Newman, swore the defendant said he was going to see the confederate agent. These persons were now in attendance, and were, it will be seen, examined to-day, and both of them distinctly contradicted Newman.

The solicitor general, Mr. Lush, Q. C, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. Harcourt appeared for the [Page 147] Crown; Mr. Bovili, Q. C, Mr. Karslake, Q. C, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Macnarnara appeared for the defence.

Evidence for the defence was gone into.

Mr. Zachary Pearson was called, and examined by Mr. Bovili. He said, I was formerly a ship-owner at Hull, and connected with a firm of Gordon, Coleman & Co., of London. I remember the Victor, a gunboat, being for sale, and Gordon, Coleman &. Co. purchased it, I was interested in that firm, and managed that business entirely.

The Lord Chief Justice. That particular transaction?

Witness. Yes. Mr. Coleman was connected with me by marriage. The ship had no masts in her when sold; she was merely a hull. I had the principal superintendence of the arrangements necessary to fit her for seal We got permission from the government to have her examined. The vessel was sold by Coleman to a French firm.

The Solicitor General. That would appear by the bill of sale.

Mr. Bovill. Was it an absolute sale?

Witness. Yes.

The solicitor general again objected that this could only be by bill of sale.

The witness said it was given to the vendee. He went on to state that he had the care of the arrangements necessary to fit her for sea. All the arrangements as to rigging and fitting, (fee, were made by means of government men out of regular hours. The witness identified a letter by him to the defendant which ran thus:

“Octobe. 7, 1863.

Will you please undertake the management of the docking and repairs of the steamer Victor, we undertaking to pay all the expenses with reference to what is necessary to be done?”

He went on to state that he had known the defendant for some years, and was unable to go down himself about the business to Sheerness. I told Mr. Rumble (he said) that I had sold her to a French firm for a voyage to China. I wrote to him.

The solicitor general called for the letter.

It appeared that it could not be produced. Witness went on to state that he had subsequently told Mr. Rumble the effect of it, and told Mr. Rumble that it was necessary to have a trial trip. The owners, the purchasers of the Tessei, ordered the vessel away.

The Lord Chief Justice. What are their names?

The witness paused, and then said “Pitzcato &Co., (as near as we could catch,) of Paris.” He went on to say that Ramsay was appointed by the French firm. The witness was on board and went down in her on the trial trip. It was necessary and usual to have a trial trip when a vessel had been long laid up. He was on board all that day. He started with the vessel, and was on board several hours that day. She was to start on a Wednesday (25th, ) and she started on Tuesday night (24th of November, ) as soon as she could. Officers of police earn on board, as there were rumors that there were some things belonging to the government. Two boats came, one containing police, and the other Mr. Rumble and his officers, and they searched the ships very carefully. After the defendant left he was not on board again until the vessel got to Calais. (The witness here identified Mr. Greathead as having been with Mr. Rumble.) Before the ship sailed, he said, he did not know the state of the boilers, nor knew they were so bad. The ship was only fit to break up. The government sold her on that account.

The Lord Chief Justice. Only fit to be broken up, you say; then she was scarcely fit to go to sea?

Well, not then.

You knew she had been condemned?

Why, yes.

But you bought her as a vessel capable of being made fit to go to sea, I suppose?

Oh, we bought her with a view of selling her and making a profit.

You bought her at “breaking up price?”

Yes.

Mr. Bovill. What price did you give the government for her?

Witnes. About £9,000. He went on to describe the state of the boilers, as shown on the trial trip. He proceeded to state that on arrival at Calais, about 6 o’clock in the evening, he wanted to get back to London and went on shore.

The Lord Chief Justice. Did she go into the harbor there?

No, it was not intended; she was going back into the river, but her boiler burst. There were no sailors on board—only artisans.

We have been told that articles were signed for a voyage to Brest. Is that true?

Articles were not signed, but a memorandum to show how long the trip was to last.

The witness here identified the memorandum, which ran thus:

“We, the undersigned, agree to act as firemen on board the steamship Scylla on a trial trip, not to exceed 14 days, and to be sent to England at the owner’s expense if landed out of England.”

This, he said, was signed by Ramsay and the men, in order to limit the time for the trip., and the ship was only fit for a trial trip. There were no sailors on board, nor provisions for [Page 148] a voyage. The owner provided, lie said, he had nothing to do with it. He landed in a boat from the Scylla at Calais, the vessel then being under way for her return to the river. Up to that time he had heard nothing of the flag. He went to shore, he said, in the pilot-boat and went to London. He was surprised, he said, to hear next day that the steamer was still at Calais. As far as I am aware the defendant was not aware that the ship was destined for the confederate service.

The Lord Chief Justice. Were you? You need not answer the question unless you like.

I decline to answer.

The Solicitor General. Cross-examined. J don’t quite understand how £9,000 should be given for a ship only fit to be broken up?

Her engines were good. It was proved afterwards that she was only fit to break up.

Pray, are Messrs. Coleman or Gordon here?

No. I believe Mr. Coleman is not now in business.

Now, you say the vessel was bought to go to China. Did you believe that she was bought with that intention?

I can’t say positively.

The Lord Chief Justice. You are asked as to your belief.

(Hesitatingly.) I am not sure about it.

Do you know or do you not?

I had reason to believe that the intention of the purchasers was to go to China.

Do you pledge your oath that you did not believe it?

In the first instance I did.

At the time the vessel left Sheerness did you believe it?

Not on that condition.

Not on that condition—of course not. But you said she was purchased to go to China?

Yes, and that will appear.

Oh, yes; by the contract, I dare say, if you swear by the card; but as to your belief?

I cannot swear as to my belief at that time. I was glad to get a purchaser, and to sell at a profit.

Now, do you think that is an answer to the question we are asking?

Witness hesitated a great deal, and gave no distinct answer.

The Solicitor General. You don’t know what you believed, then?

I had reason to believe she was to be a confederate vessel, but that the intention was to send her to China.

Oh, indeed ! She was to be a confederate vessel and go to China?

The Lord Chief Justice. Am I to take that thus: “I had reason to believe that she was intended for a confederate vessel, but that she was to go to China?” Is that what you say?

Yes.

The Solicitor General. Can you explain why a confederate ship should go to China

Oh, yes, I could explain.

Then do, please.

Confederate cruisers go all over the seas.

Oh, that’s what you mean, is it? She was to be a confederate cruiser, was she?

I don’t mean that.

What do you mean?

That I sold the vessel to these parties, and that their intention was to make a large profit.

The Lord Chief Justice. You understood that they meant to sell her to the confederates for profit, but that you were to equip her for a voyage to China?

Yes.

The Solicitor General. Don’t you know that it was intended that she should go to China as a confederate cruiser?

I don’t know.

Did you not believe that she was intended as a confederate cruiser?

I did not know of my own knowledge.

Did you not believe it?

I had nothing to do with it.

Did you not believe she was to be a confederate steamer when she started?

(Quickly.) No, that she was not.

That she was to be so?

No, I did not know it.

Did you believe it?

No, I did not believe it, for she wras in a breaking-up state.

Then she was hardly fit to go to China?

No; she could scarcely get to Calais.

You said you were to equip her to go to China?

Yes, under the original agreement.

Was it not announced on the “trial trip” that she was to be a confederate cruiser?

No.

[Page 149]

Was not the name Scylla painted out in the course of the trip?

I did not know it was being done. I think the name was painted out while I was on board.

And the name Rappahannock painted in?

I did not see it until afterwards.

“Was it not painted when you were on board?

It may have been, but—

But what?

I am not certain.

Was there not the confederate flag flying?

No, I am sure there was not.

Was there no flag flying?

No, when there was nothing on board to make one.

The Lord Chief Justice. It has been stated that there was.

There may have been some bunting got next day from shore, and it may have been made on board then.

The Solicitor General, You say there were no flags on board?

No.

You say the ship was sold to a French firm?

Yes. She changed hands two or three times.

When did you sell her to the French firm?

About a month previously to our leaving Calais. I cannot say the date.

The Lord Chief Justice. What did you sell her for?

I think for £20,000.

The Solicitor General. You “think” for £20,000. When was the sale?

I cannot give the date.

The Lord Chief Justice. I presume it would appear by the books of Colemans?

Witness said he had sold her by commission; he was not otherwise interested.

The Solicitor General. You are aware that by the bill of sale Colemans appear on the 6th of November as the registered owners?

Yes, I am well aware of it.

Did you see the money paid?

Yes; one-half of it was paid down.

Where?

In London.

Where in London?

I believe at Coleman’s office.

When?

As to date I am at sea.

Oh! as to date you are at sea?

Yes, (hesitating;) I think in September or October—early in October.

By whom was the money paid?

By a person I never saw before.

Nor since?

No, I believe not.

The Lord Chief Justice. When was the other half paid?

The day the ship was at Calais.

How, in bank notes or cash?

(Hesitatingly.) I think it was in cotton bonds.

You think. Why, you are a mercantile man, and this was a large transaction; surely you must know well how the money was paid. Was it paid in money or by cotton bonds?

By cotton bonds.

Bonds from whom to whom? What bonds?

Certificates given by the confederate government, representing each twenty bales of cotton.

Mr. Bovill. I believe they are very common in London. There are thousands, perhaps millions of them about.

One of the Jury. Oh, yes; they are what is called “confederate stock.”

The Lord Chief Justice. Who paid the money?

I don’t know his name.

Where is Coleman?

I don’t know.

The Solicitor General. Have you been in communication with the confederete agents?

Yes.

Have you not acted as a confederate agent?

No. I have sent them ships.

You have sent them ships?

Yes; and the federals robbed me of my ships, and the confederates robbed me of my money. (Much laughter.)

The Lord Chief Justice. What do you mean? How did the confederates rob you of your money?

[Page 150]

Why, I sold them things to the amount of £190,000, and took their agent’s drafts on the -confederate treasury, and they refuse to pay them, so I have £190,000 of bad debts against them.

The Solicitor General. You have had many transactions with the confederates?

No.

No? Why, there was one.

Except that.

Was that all one transaction, then?

Yes.

You have been in frequent communication with persons connected with the confederate government?

I have tried to do business with them, to my great misfortune.

You have been in communication with Mr. Rumble?

Yes.

Since this affair?

Yes.

You have kept up your intimacy with him, then?

Yes, so far as we were ever intimate.

Did you furnish him with funds for the purpose of paying men?

Yes; we gave him some money for the purpose of wages for equipment, &c.

The Lord Chief Justice. What do you mean by that term?

It includes sails, masts, yards, &c. The government stripped her, and made her a wreck before selling her. They took off her gun-plates.

The Solicitor General. Oh ! you rather wanted them to remain, did you?

They would have been of value, if only for the metal.

Oh ! you wanted them to remain for the sake of the value of the metal, did you?

Mr. Bovill. He did not say that exactly.

Witness. No, I did not say that was the reason; I said the plates would have been of value even as metal. But the government took them off; and, in fact, quite stripped her.

Re-examined by Mr. Bovill.

The witness said the ship had no masts or rigging, &c, and everything had to be put into her, at an expense of about £5,000. The ship was resold for about £20,000. The money for the purchase was paid in cotton bonds. They are circulated from hand to hand without indorsement.

The Lord Chief Justici:. You cannot tell, then, looking at them, whether they are taken in the ordinary course of business, or direct-from the confederate government?

No.

Mr. Bovill. The market price fluctuates according to the news?

Yes.

And some people make fortunes, and others burn their fingers?

Yes; I believe so. (A laugh.)

Was Mr. Rumble to have anything for his services?

There was no agreement to give him anything, but, of course, we should have given him something for his services.

As you might any one else in the dock-yard?

Yes; they were all very obliging; they always are when a ship is sold.

Now, then, whatever you may have thought or suspected as to the ultimate destination of the vessel, have you any reason to believe that Mr. Rumble knew of it?

(The solicitor general objected. The witness ought only to be asked what he told Rumble.)

Mr. Bovill. Then I will ask this: Whatever may have been on your own mind as to the ultimate destination of the vessel, did you ever communicate it to Mr. Rumble?

No, never.

The Lord Chief Justice. Now. just answer me a few questions. How was it that on “a trial trip” the vessel went to Calais?

The person who was in charge of her (Ramsay) suggested it. It was a short trip, and it was a beautiful day.

Mr. Ramsay suggested it, you say?

Yes.

Without saying what it was for?

Yes.

When did he suggest it?

When we weighed anchor for the Nore.

Now, you say that as soon as you got to Calais, and the confederate flag was hoisted, you asked for the remainder of the purchase money, and got it?

Yes.

Without anything further?

No.

They made no objection, and paid you at once?

They were obliged to do so.

[Page 151]

They were at Calais, you know?

Yes, but they could be compelled to pay.

Now, we have been told that while the ship was at Calais, in consequence of the state of the boilers, a number of boiler-makers, &c, were sent over to manage the repairs. Did you pay for that?

No.

Did you know of Mr. Rumble going over to see to the payment?

No.

You did not find the money, then, for it?

No.

Nor your firm?

No; we had nothing to do with it; we demanded immediate payment of the money and got it.

However, you did not pay anything towards the repairs of the boilers, &c.?

No.

You say you bought the vessel for £9,000, and sold her for £20,000, (subject to the expense of equipment, &c.,) to a French firm; had you been in communication with them before you bought her?

Yes, I had done a large business with them.

But had you been in communication with them as to the purchase of the vessel?

No; as soon as I purchased her, I went over to France to find a purchaser.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor General.

The witness said his memory had not been refreshed on the subject until recently, at Gibraltar, when his attention was directed to it by the report of the case in the newspapers.

(The trial had been adjourned from December on account of the absence of this witness and young Mr. Rumble, who were then both abroad.)

Did you go to the French firm?

Yes.

You bought her on speculation to sell her again in France?

Yes.

You went over to Paris about it?

Yes; the vessel had been open for sale to the public for two years.

You did not try to sell her in London?

No.

The witness went on to say that the government had stripped the ship and made her a wreck.

The Lord Chief Justice. Not quite; they left enough for a considerable profit, it would seem.

James Hare was then called, and examined by Mr. Karslake. I carry on business as a painter at Sheerness. I knew Mr. Ramsay. I did not see Mr. Rumble before I went to Mr. Ramsay; I saw him afterwards. They came together to my shop. I received an order to do work on board the Victor; she was then at Sheerness. I painted her. We were working at her until she left, and she was not finished then. My bill was £103; that was unpaid when she left Sheerness. When I heard the Scylla had arrived at Calais I went to Mr. Rumble at his house. That was about 9 on Saturday evening. He was not at home, but I saw his daughter. I went again about half-past 10, and saw him. I showed him my bill, and told him I should look to him for the amount.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lush.

I had been working the day she left, and meant to go again the next day. I did not know she was going. There was a good deal of work to do when she started. My tools were on board.

In re-examination, the witness said that he would leave his tools on board if he knew she were going on a trial trip.

James Cooke examined by Serjeant Ballantine. I am a nephew of Miss Burlington, a furniture dealer. Eamsay and Kerr had a bill with us for £50 or £60. This was unpaid when the vessel sailed.

The Lord Chief Justice. I own, Mr. Bovili, I don’t see the point of this.

Mr. BovILL. It is this, my lord: in reference to the letter I read yesterday of Mr. Rumble, stating that, as he considered himself morally responsible to several tradesmen in connexion with the vessel, he must go over to Calais.

The Lord Chief Justice. Oh, yes; I understand.

Miss Rumble was then called and examined by Mr. Serjeant Ballantine. I remember (she said) the 28th of November, 1863. It was a Saturday. I was at home; my father was not. He went up to town by the 9 o’clock train; he returned about 10. I was at home all the evening. I should have known if any one called that evening. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson did not call that evening. I remember the 24th of November. I went to a lecture at Mile-town, Sheerness; before that I went to a tea meeting with my father. My father lectured, and we went away about 10 in a cab. We got home about ten minutes past 10, We had [Page 152] supper together. I retired about half-past 10. I have a brother. He came in while we were at supper. I left him with my father. My father’s house is about half an hour’s walk from Sheerness pier. The Scylla was about ten minutes from the shore by boat. I remember my father going to Calais; he went alone.

In cross-examination by Mr. Lush, she said: I went to London with my father. When he left me I went on to Yorkshire. My father fetched me about five weeks afterwards. I did not hear how long my father had been in Calais. My father has lectured three or four times. The lecture began about 7. The last time the trial was on here was the first time I had this brought to my mind.

Joseph James Greathead was then called and examined by Mr. Bovill: I am chief engineer in lier Majesty’s service. I have been in the service eighteen years. I have known Mr. Rumble seven years. In 1863 I was engineer on board the Mars. I was also assistant to Mr. Rumble. It is part of my duty to visit all vessels undergoing repairs. I remember the day the Scylla left Sheerness. I went with Mr. Rumble to inspect the ship. We had a boat’s crew with us; there were no police. We left the ship about 1.30. Mr. Rumble left with me. He walked with me to my house; then went in the direction of his own house. I saw him again at about 5.30. He was then in uniform. This was at a lecture and tea-meeting. Mr. Rumble delivered the lecture. The lecture was over about 10. I saw Mr. Rumble get into a cab to go home. The distance between Mr. Rumble’s house and the snip would be between two and three miles. With tide it would take fifteen to twenty minutes, against tide from one to three hours, to reach the ship.

Being then examined as to Newman having been engaged by Mr. Rumble, he said he did not know Newman at all, and denied in toto the conversation sworn to by Newman with Mr. Rumble after the vessel arrived at Calais.

The Lord Chief Justice. You never heard any conversation about Mr. Rumble goings to a confederate agent, or anything of the kind?

Witness. No. I never was present at any conversation with Mr. Rumble upon the subject of the ship at all.

In answer to the lord chief justice, the witness positively repeated this, The next witness was Mr. Rumble, jr., who was examined by Mr. Karslake, Q. C, and stated that he remembered the Scylla when at Sheerness, and was engaged at the dock-yard himself. He said ho remembered the vessel leaving the harbor at night. He confirmed his sister’s evidence as to the lecture, and declared that he saw his father that evening after the lecture. He then contradicted the evidence of the witness Newman, and positively denied that he had ever been present at a conversation between his father and Newman, or that his father ever said in his presence (as Newman had said) that he was going to London to see the confederate agent.

He was cross-examined by the solicitor general, and it appeared that he had called at his father’s house that night to ask his father to come and see him, and did not see him, but he came “in about a quarter of an hour.” He was pressed as to whether he could positively say it was not longer, but he could not say.

The Lord Chief Justice. I presume you did not know anything about the ship being for the confedererate service?

No.

Then, if you had heard your father say that he was going to see the confederate agent it would have struck you as remarkable?

Yes.

And you are quite sure you never heard him say so?

Quite sure.

Mr. BOVILL said this was the case for the defence, and he was sorry that he had no right, as this was a criminal case, to sum up his evidence or address the jury upon it.

The Lord Chief Justice. I wish it were not so, and I hope to see that portion of our criminal procedure altered.

Mr. BOVILL. That, my lord, is a hint upon which I hope some amendment of the law in that respect may be proposed.

The Lord Chief Justice. There ought, certainly, to be no difference between civil and criminal procedure in that respect.

Mr. BOVILL. Except this—that as criminal cases are of more importance, touching, as they do, the liberty of life of the accused, it is more important that the counsel for the accused should be placed on a fair footing of equality with the counsel for the prosecution.

The Solicitor Genera. then rose to reply on the part of the Crown.

The Lord Chief Justic. desired him in the course of his address to point out upon what particular counts he demanded a verdict against the defendant, for instance, as to the equipment charges.

The Solicitor General. said he would do so, and then commenced his reply on the part of the Crown. Ho commenced by complimenting Mr. Bovili for the zealous and able defence he had made for his client, and thanked him for the very handsome compliment he had paid to the conduct of the prosecution on the part of the Crown. At the same time, he said, his learned friend had made some observations which he had heard with great pain and regret His learned friend had. more than insinuated that this prosecution was dictated by the American [Page 153] government, and that tlie American government had caused it to be instituted with the object that they might obtain a verdict from a British jury against an officer of the Crown, and then upon that verdict found a claim for damages against this country; and he attributed this course to the malice and ill-will they bear against this country. Gentlemen, said the learned solicitor general, with warmth and emphasis, I regret—deeply regret—that my learned friend should have thought it consistent with his duty to make these observations. Gentlemen, it is no cause of surprise or complaint that those who represent the American government in this country, if they had reason to suppose that any subjects of the Queen had violated their neutrality and assisted their enemies, should bring these facts to the knowledge of the government. And it is proper that in their communications with the government they should not confine themselves to mere suspicion, conjecture or accusation, (which could not be attended to, ) but should submit some definite statement, consisting of evidence they had obtained of facts which could be substantiated. Gentlemen, it is the proper and usual course to pursue; and if our positions were reversed, and if we ourselves were belligerents and the United States were a neutral power, suck a course would be proper for our agents to take in America, and it is a course which has been heretofore, and many times, adopted. And, gentlemen, I further say, that when evidence such as that is brought to the attention of the government from any source, whether the American consul or their own police, it is their bounden duty, not for the purpose of gratifying the malice of any foreign nation, but for the purpose of vindicating our own laws. In this country, as in all properly governed countries, it is the sole right and duty of the sovereign power to make war, and where a subject is engaged in warlike operations, in fitting out ships, or in enlisting men for the service of a belligerent, without the consent of the sovereign power, no nation with any self-respect can afford to pass over such an offence. It was, therefore, the duty of the government, upon such evidence being brought to them from any source, to institute the prosecution, and submit it to a jury, bound, of course, by their decision. Gentlemen, we administer and enforce our own laws for our own satisfaction, not for the satisfaction of any foreign government, and I should be unworthy of the office which I have the honor to hold if I could propound it as a topic worthy of a moment’s consideration in a criminal case whether your verdict of guilty or not guilty will give satisfaction or offence to any foreign power. Gentlemen, my learned friend has suggested that a claim for damages could be founded on your verdict; but, surely, it is perfectly preposterous. I repeat, it is a perfectly preposterous proposition that a government is answerable for the conduct of any of its officers or subjects, if without its knowledge, sanction, or approbation. If, indeed, these acts were ratified by the government, then there might be ground of complaint. But when a prosecution has been instituted and submitted to the jury, and a verdict of guilty or not guilty returned, there can bo no possible cause of complaint against this country. If the case is not proved against Mr. Rumble, of course you will acquit him; and, of course, you will not give a moment’s consideration to the effect which may. be produced abroad. But, if the case is proved, I confess I cannot follow the reasoning of my learned friend that it could be any ground of a claim against this country that you have thus pronounced a verdict of guilty. But, gentlemen, I pass from these topics which I regret my learned friend should have introduced, to a consideration of the evidence in the case, to which, and which alone, I invite your attention. The learned solicitor general then proceeded to reply upon Mr. Bovill’s remarks as to the character of the witnesses and the conduct of O’Kelly. He then proceeded as to the remarks upon the payment of 12s. 6d. a week to witness. It would have been impossible to keep those witnesses together for such a long time, adjourned as the trial has been time after time. It is a mistake to suppose that they got this in addition to their pay. But it is for you to weigh the evidence. They had no animosity against Mr. Rumble, and it is almost impossible to suppose that a number of British sailors have concocted such stories as these men have told. Now, let us see what the character of this transaction is. I don’t think you can doubt that this vessel, when she was bought, was intended for a war vessel. That she left Sheerness in a hurry no one can doubt. She starts at midnight. Half way across the mask is thrown off. Ramsay tells the men that he has given her a new name; hoists the confederate flag, and she becomes to all intents and purposes a confederate vessel. You cannot doubt what Ramsay’s intention was. The learned counsel then called attention to the character of the evidence of Mr. Pearson, which he characterized as most unsatisfactory. He then proceeded: We now come to the question, did Mr. Rumble bona fide believe that this vessel was destined for thè China trade? I agree with my learned friend that even if Mr. Rumble had equipped and manned the vessel himself, if without knowledge of her destination he is not guilty. Now, gentlemen, (continued the learned solicitor general, ) a word as to the law upon the subject. I quite agree with my learned friend that it must be proved that Mr. Rumble did the acts with an intent to contravene the statute, and that he must be proved to have had that intention in this country. But, gentlemen, let me direct your attention, and my lords, to the recent statute (24 Victoria,) which enacts that whoever shall aid and abet or counsel or procure the commission of any misdemeanor (whether at common law or by statute) shall be liable to be indicted as a principal offender.

The Lord Chief Justice. But where do you say that the misdemeanor must be completed? There must be a hiring or enlistment within the United Kingdom, or a misdemeanor is not completed.

[Page 154]

The Solicitor General. I quite agree.

The Lord Chief Justice. You must, therefore, come to that—whether the actual enlist ment was in the United Kingdom. The misdemeanor he “counselled” must have been committed.

The Solicitor General. I quite agree; but if a man is enlisted in this country to serve in the confederate navy—whether it is for a trial trip or a trip to China—not only those who hired, but those who aided and abetted, may be treated as principals in the offence.

The Lord Chie. JUSTICE. If they knew of it, and enlisted with the intention; but no one of the men said that they had any notion of the fact.

The Solicitor General. My contention is that the intention in the mind of the enlister is the ncus rea, and that if the accused enlisted men on board a ship which he knew to be intended to be used in the confederate service, or causes them to serve, that is an offence.

The Lord Chief Justice. Every one of these men might have thrown up his engagement when he found that the vessel was not in British ownership.

The Solicitor General. No doubt; but the question is as to the intention of the party-enlisting them.

The Lord Chief Justice. But you must show an enlisting by the person who enlists to serve in the belligerent service.

The Solicitor General. If the indictment were against the parties, enlisting; but this is against the party said to have enlisted them.

The Lord Chief Justice. You can hardly put a different construction on the same words in the same enactment.

The foreman of the jury here said: My lord, is it competent for us to express an opinion which might save a great deal of time? We have formed an opinion as to whether the defendant was aware of the real destination of the vessel, and our opinion is that he was not.

The Solicitor General. Gentlemen, that is the point on which I was about to address you.

The Lord Chief Justic.. Gentlemen, if you have firmly and finally decided upon that point, it is, of course, useless to go on; but that is the great point to which your attention is to be directed.

The Solicitor General. Gentlemen, I should be glad to be relieved from the painful duty imposed upon me, but it is my bounden duty to call your attention to the several circumstances which tend strongly to the conclusion that he did know of it, and I must pray you, therefore, to hear me. If a person knowing that a vessel is destined for the service of a belligerent engages men to serve on board, I submit that it is an offence, and equally so, although the men are engaged, as in the case of the “ Queen vs. Jones,” (tried before the lord chief justice at Liverpool,) to go to another, place abroad and there to be enlisted in the belligerent service; that is clearly an offence within the act.

The Lord Chief Justice. I cannot quite accede to the terms of that proposition that it is “clearly within the act.”

The Solicitor General. I submit it; though, probably, your lordship may deem it a point which deserves consideration.

The Lord Chief Justice. Yes, it ought to be reserved.

The Solicitor Genera. then proceeded. Such, he said, was the view of the law he had desired to submit to the jury, and he understood it was to be so taken for the purpose of the trial. That is the law, and I will now proceed to facts, and will call your attention to what I think shows that Mr. Rumble knew the destination of the vessel. The supposition is that Mr. Rumble was imposed upon. Let us see if his conduct is consistent with this. I will say now that I rely on the hiring of Shaw and Hall. The learned counsel then called attention to passages in the evidence of these men.

The Lord Chief Justice. There is no engagement of Shaw.

The Solicitor General. If your lordship takes that view I shall not press it. But I must call your attention to this: In an interview where Mr. Rumble was present, Shaw, thinking the pay was not enough, says they are getting as much as this in the merchant service. What can be the meaning of this if this vessel were supposed to be in the merchant service? The learned counsel then called attention to some other passages of a like nature. He then proceeded: I must submit to his lordship that there is evidence as to enlistment of Firth and Hurford, and, under the common law courts, as to the enlistment of Maloney.

The Lord Chief Justice. There is no evidence as to Maloney. He went across to Calais. Then he left, and afterwards was engaged as a boiler-maker, and only as a boiler-maker.

The Solicitor Genera. said that he relied upon the common law courts for an offence in counselling, &c, Maloney and others to enlist.

The Lord Chief Justice. What is the common law offence?

The Solicitor General. The gist of the common law offence is enlistment in a vessel for warlike purposes.

The Lord Chief Justice. Then it is clear there was no enlistment of Maloney within the act. The intention of being enlisted for warlike purposes must exist at the time of enlistment.

The Solicitor General. I shall reserve the right of objecting to your lordship’s ruling on that point. Now, as to Mr. Rumble’s knowledge. He procures men, is constantly on [Page 155] board, and actually makes himself liable for tradesmen’s bills! “Who for? Pearson? Ramsay? Why should he do all this for mere acquaintances? Then she goes to Calais. Mr. Pearson says that after she went there he had nothing, to do with her. The case for the other side is, that a gross fraud had been committed on Mr. Rumble. What is his conduct when he finds out that this fraud has been committed upon him—when he finds that the ship which should have gone to Calais has hoisted the confederate flag? Instead of being indignant as one would imagine, he goes over to Calais with boiler-makers for the vessel; he is seen there in the cabin of the vessel, sitting with the officers. Is this the conduct of a man who has been imposed upon? It is said, on the part of Mr. Rumble, that he went to Calais to get payment of tradesmen at Sheerness; if so, why did he take the boiler-makers with him to the assistance of the vessel? Those are all the remarks I wish to make. Of course, if you are of opinion that Mr. Rumble did not do these things with a guilty knowledge, you will acquit him; but if you think he had a guilty knowledge, I have no doubt you will uphold the law of the country—a law of so much importance to all of us, as enabling her Majesty to observe and adhere to her neutrality and to preserve the peace of the country.

The Lord Chief Justic. then proceeded to sum up the case to the jury. Gentlemen, he said, you have already intimated an opinion as to a point which lies at the root of this inquiry, viz: that the defendant was not party to an engagement of men with a view to enlistment in the confederate service, for that is, undoubtedly, the very gist of the indictment; and I am always reluctant, when a jury have expressed an opinion which tends to the acquittal of an accused person, to stand between him and the verdict which they are desirous of pronouncing. Nevertheless, gentlemen, I thought it much better that you should hear what the solicitor general had to urge, and also the few observations which I desire to address to you. If you still remain of the same mind, and the result of the whole inquiry is, that you think that whatever may have been the motive of other people, the defendant was a mere innocent agent in the matter—if you come clearly to that conclusion, it is, of course, unnecessary to consider the particular instances in which he may have been engaged, and the particular individuals with reference to whom the different counts are framed; and it may be as well, therefore, to address our selves in the first instance to that question, viz: as to how far Mr. Rumble, in engaging these men to take service on board the vessel, (putting aside for the present the legal question whether their engagement, under the particular circumstances, with the intention upon his part that they should be so engaged, would amount to an offence, either within the statute or at common law,) how far he had at the time the intention to contravene the object of the act, and consider with what intention he did the acts complained of. Now, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt in anybody’s mind that those who bought this vessel from the government sold her—whether directly to the agents of the confederate government, or to some parties who stood midway between these agents and themselves— with the intent that the vessel should pass into the service of the confederates. No one who heard Mr. Pearson’s evidence—no one who saw and heard him while giving his evidence— can imagine any possible doubt upon that question. But when Mr. Pearson tells you (though the credibility of the statement is matter for you to consider) that what was held out as the ostensible object, even as between Coleman & Co. and the French firm, was that the ship should be engaged in the China trade—though, no doubt, that was for the purpose of masking the real intention and purpose of the parties—Mr. Rumble, to whom the same language was used, may have been imposed upon by this pretence, and may have engaged the men to serve on board the vessel in the honest belief that what was told him by them was true, and that the ship was intended to take a trip to China, and to be engaged in the opium trade, in which we know it often turns out that large profits are reaped by those who embark in it. And it is possible that Mr. Rumble may have been deceived by what every one must feel to have been a mere pretence for the purpose of masking the intention of the principals in the business. I put on one side here the statements of two or three witnesses who speak to conversations in which Mr. Rumble is alleged to have taken part, and which would bear a different construction, for they are open to a great deal of observation, and painful remarks were made by Mr. Bovili on the manner they had been tampered with. One of them says that when the terms of the engagement were being discussed, Mr. Rumble observed that if they went in the vessel they would come back great gainers, and that he should like to go shares with them. That may have been said innocently, and with reference to an adventure intended for China; but it may have an opposite construction, as referring to the vessel being destined for war, and the probability of prize money being realized, in which the men on board would be entitled to share. Another conversation had reference to the subject of clothing, and he is represented to have said that there was plenty of gray cloth on board, and men who could make it up—that is, for the confederate uniform. If these conversations were to be credited, it would go very plainly to show the service in which the men were to be engaged. The witnesses, however, are open to much observation, and I certainly would recommend you, with reference to evidence which has been obtained or “nursed” by means of such practices as we have heard these witnesses confess to, I would advise you to receive all they say, more especially with regard to conversations, with extreme caution. But I would call attention to the fact to which it is important we should advert. It was not denied on the part of Mr. Rumble that after the vessel had shown her true colors, and her true character was no longer disguised, and when [Page 156] he confederate flag was hoisted and confederate officers were on board of her and in command of her, and when she was to all intents and purposes a confederate Tessei; when this came to his knowledge he neither remonstrated with those who (as it is represented) haj| made him their dupe and their fool in the transaction, nor did he wash his hands of all four* ther participation in the enterprise; but, on the contrary, he went on engaging men, and seeking them out for the purpose of engagement. Let any man consider what would have been his conduct if he had found himself placed in the position in which Mr. Rumble is represented to have been placed; a British subject, an officer in the royal navy, perfectly aware of the law, perfectly aware that in lending himself to an enterprise of this kind he was violating his duty as a subject and an officer in the service of the Crown, finding that he had been induced to take part in such an enterprise by representations that it was an adventure in the China trade, what would have been the course anyone would have taken who found that he had been made an innocent instrument of such a design? Would not his first impulse have been to remonstrate with those who had placed him in such a false and painful position? But we hear of no such remonstrance; and not only so, but he engages a number of boiler-makers, and not merely sends, but takes them over to Calais, and goes with them to Calais, and induces them to work on the ship. Gentlemen, I feel that I should not have discharged my duty if I had not asked you to consider these circumstances. Not, indeed that what he may have done at Calais is the subject-matter of this indictment; but it throw light upon what was his understanding and intent in the earlier part of the transaction, and upon that which is the subject-matter of the inquiry, viz: the state of his mind and the intention with which he did the acts charged against him; and for this reason, that it is difficult to conceive that a man who had not the mind and intent alleged at the time the matters took place which are the subject of this prosecution, and who had found out that he had been made an instrument of in the matter, would have gone to do what was necessary to carry out the design. It is well, therefore, that you should direct your attention to these matters. And I should add, that if you are of opinion that this part of the case is true, then it may tend to confirm the credibility of the witnesses who speak to the specific facts which are the subject of the indictment. Now, gentlemen, the indictment is divided into two main heads or branches; one is as to the equipment of the vessel for the service of the Confederate States; the other is as to the enlistment of men for that service. As to the former, I did not understand the solicitor general to ask you to give a verdict on those counts which relate to the equipment. The vessel was bought as a hull, that is, with only her machinery and without masts, sails, or spars, and destitute of warlike stores of every kind. And nothing appears to have been done to furnish or equip her, or supply her with materials or munitions of war. Therefore, I do not see how the trifling things which the defendant is alleged to have done, not amounting to an “equipment could be a ground for convicting him under these counts of the indictment. They, therefore, may be dismissed from your consideration. The point to which your attention is to be directed, and upon which you are asked to give your verdict for the Crown, is the counts as to the enlistment of men. Now, as I have already said, what takes place at Calais does not come within the statute, and the only part of the case which could do so is that which took place at Sheerness.

The lord chief justice here entered into an elaborate analysis of the evidence as to the enlistment. His lordship read some passages from the evidence of Firth and others, and observed: It plainly appears from this that the idea in every one’s mind was, that the vessel was going on a trial trip and then to China. It also appears that all the engagements made by Mr. Rumble were temporary. His lordship then called attention to the evidence of Newman as to the interview with Mr. Rumble after the vessel had started, and said, if this evidence were uncontradicted, I should say that there could be no doubt as to the knowledge of Mr. Rumble. But there is an answer to this in the evidence of Mr. Greathead and young Mr. Rumble, who deny this interview altogether. As to the hurried nature of the departure of the vessel and the defendants having been on board, there is the evidence of the defendant’s son, and daughter, and, in fact, of Mr. Greathead also, who showed most conclusively (if they are to be credited) that the defendant was in different places until half past 11 o’clock, and could not well have been on board at that time. As to the evidence of Thompson, that is certainly very material (if it can, be depended on) in showing that the defendant knew that these engagements were for the confederate service. But the daughter contradicts all this, saying that they could not have seen her father at the time they swear to, as he was not there at that time. There is, then, the evidence of Maloney and some others (into which also his lordship elaborately entered,) and that, gentlemen, continued his lordship, makes the case of the prosecution, and it appears to come to this, that the engagement of the men was to serve on board the vessel on what was called a trial trip for a fortnight. It further appears that, up to the time the vessel: left, none of them had the remotest idea that the ultimate destination of the vessel was that she should enter into the confederate service, and that they or any of them should enter into that service, but that the notion at the time was that after the trial trip was completed she would go to China and embark in the opium trade; that some of them desired a permanent engagement in that trade, and that some declined to go, but that none of them had any notion that the vessel was intended to be used in the confederate service. But then the great question presents itself, whether, supposing that the defendant knew what the ulterior purpose or object of the vessel was, and that, so far as he [Page 157] engaged the men, he did so with the view that they should, when the vessel had gone away from Sheerness, be induced to enlist in the confederate service, whether that comes within the act, or would constitute an offence at common law. We will not, however, stop to enter into that inquiry now; but if you should be of opinion that he did procure them to enter into engagements nominally for a trial trip, but with the ulterior purpose on his part of getting them into a position in which they might be induced to enlist in the confederate service, you had better find the defendant guilty, the point being reseived for the consideration of the court whether or not that would constitute an offence either at common law or within the statute. But you must first be satisfied in your own minds that he did procure the men to engage in the “trial trip” with the object that they should be afterwards induced to enlist in the confederate service. Now, that would depend a good deal on the question, What was the purpose with which the vessel left Sheerness? Did she go, in fact, upon a “trial trip?” or was the intention to get her out of the river, and beyond the reach of English law, that then the enlistment in the confederate service might be carried on with impunity? Now, certainly the case as it was at first presented on the part of the prosecution was that the vessel had been suddenly taken out to sea at night, without any idea of “a trial trip,” and taken over to Calais; but there was a good deal of evidence on the other side (much of it coming from the witnesses for the Crown) which well deserves your serious consideration. If Mr. Rumble, whatever might have been his secret notions or consciousness of the destination of the vessel, and how much there might have been of impropriety on his part in taking part in a transaction of this kind—if his object in engaging these men was simply that the vessel should go out on a trial and come back, it would be quite different from a design to get the vessel out under the pretence of a trial trip, and thus get the men into a position in which they might be induced to enlist in the confederate service. Now, what was the state of the vessel when she went out? If we believe Mr. Pearson, the purchasers, in reselling her, were under a legal obligation to repair and equip her at an expense of about £5,000; and if so, it is idle to suppose that those who had thus bought her would have taken her out of the hands of the sellers, relieving them from the obligation to do these extensive and ossential repairs. In what condition, then, did she go to sea? It appeared that she had nothing to fit her for a voyage further than for a mere trial trip, and that is a fact which tends to show that the statement is true that it was a mere trial trip. If so, and if it was intended simply to send the vessel out on a trial trip, and to see if her engines and boilers were all right, and then come back into the river and continue in the possession of Mr. Pearson and the sellers in order to her being equipped and repaired, it would be idle to ask you to come to the conclusion that Mr. Rumble, whatever part he may have taken in the engagement of the men, engaged them with a view to the confederate service, and in that view of the case the defendant ought to be acquitted. But if you believe that the vessel was to go away to Calais in order to get out of the reach of the English authorities, and that the object of Mr. Rumble in engaging these men was that when they were on the other side of the water they should be induced to enlist in the confederate service, then he ought to be convicted. The representation of Mr. Pearson was that it was intended that the vessel should come back, but that her boilers gave way, and that she had to go into harbor; that then she had to show her flag; and that it was then that the confederate flag was hastily made up and hoisted; and that the confederate officers came on board, and the true character of the vessel was declared. It is for you to decide what was the intention of Mr. Rumble in engaging these men, and what was the true motive and intention of the transaction itself. Did he know that she was intended for the confederate service, and did he lend himself to the purpose by engaging men with intent that they should be enlisted into that service 1 Gentlemen, it is a case of the gravest importance. It is of the gravest national importance that the law in this respect should be observed and upheld. No nation professing neutrality ought to tolerate that its subjects should take upon themselves to assist one or other of two belligerent powers—powers at war with one another. It is not consistent with its own national honor—I will not say safety, for it is a phrase you, perhaps, would not approve— but it is not consistent with its best and truest interests, and its real honor and welfare, that such a course should be permitted. Above all, one is grieved to find that an officer in her Majesty’s service should, either directly or indirectly, have lent himself to a purpose so contrary to his duty and to the honor of the Crown. Gentlemen, I must say that I cannot look without great regret at a part of the case resting upon evidence which cannot be doubted or gainsaid—the conduct of Mr. Rumble in going over to the vessel after her true character and destination had been disclosed. But we must not press that too far; and though it may show that at that time, at all events, he had the intention of assisting the equipment of the vessel for the confederate service, it does not conclusively show what his intentions were at an earlier stage of the transaction. On the other hand, you must not lose sight of this—especially in reference to. conversations and other parts of the case pressed against the defendant—that much of the evidence is open to the gravest suspicion. One regrets to find that in this country any person should be found who, acting on one side or the other, should pursue such an abominable system as that which appears to have been pursued in coaxing these witnesses, and keeping, them together in the manner which we have heard of, with unlimited and extravagant refreshment and amusement, and supplies of money. Not that 1 blame those who instituted the prosecution for giving subsistence money to those witnesses [Page 158] whose avocations would call them out of the country, and who could not be expected to remain here without support while earning no wages, and no fault can be found with the reasonable sums disbursed for that purpose by a respectable firm of solicitors at Rochester on behalf of the admiralty! But I speak of the unlimited, extravagant debauchery which has been carried on by that man O’Kelly, (who I hope, for the credit of this country, is not a British subject)—it is with reference to that I speak; and I would advise that the evidence of witnesses thus dealt with should be received with extreme caution. At the same time, if the probabilities of the case, when you come to look at the other circumstances and the concurrent testimony of all the witnesses, lead to the conclusion that those statements are true, they are not lightly to be set aside. Then comes the question, what do they amount to? Do they show that the defendant engaged the men with intent that they should be enlisted in the confederate service? That depends not only on the terms and manner of their engagement, but upon the real intention and design of the parties concerned. And what that was it is for you to say, judging from all the circumstances in the case.

The jury, who had listened to this charge with the utmost attention, then consulted among themselves for some time. In the result, however, they returned a verdict of not guilty, which was received with some applause.

[From the London Times of February 7, 1865.]

[Untitled]

The story of the Rappahannock has at last been elucidated by a judicial inquiry, and it certainly discloses a very gross abuse of our neutrality by some person or persons unknown. The acquittal of the defendant, Mr. Rumble, only proves that in the opinion of the jury he was the tool of others; it does not in the least degree negative the fact that a flagrant breach of the foreign enlistment act was committed. The second section of our act, as our readers are well aware by this time, prohibits the hiring, retaining, engaging, or procuring any one to enter the service of a foreign belligerent, and makes any such act a misdemeanor. Under this section, Mr. Rumble, being the inspector of machinery afloat in her Majesty’s dock-yard at Sheerness, was indicted in the month of June last, and although he was also indicted under the famous 7th section, which is directed against illegal equipment; yet, as this charge was virtually abandoned, everything really turned on the former. The trial was commenced before the lord chief justice of England, and several witnesses had been examined on behalf of the Crown, when an important question arose on the statement of a person called Newman, and the lord chief justice thought it his duty to adjourn the trial for the production of further testimony. The result has shown that the delay was necessary for the purposes of justice, and Mr. Rumble doubtless owes the verdict in his favor to the evidence in contradiction of Newman, which he has thus been enabled to adduce. Whether he has cleared himself of all complicity with practices derogatory to the honor and interests of the government whose ser-vant he is, can only be determined by a careful perusal of the whole case.

A screw gunboat, called the Victor, of about five hundred tons burden, and carrying six guns, was offered for sale by the admiralty in 1863. It was purchased for £9,000 on behalf of Messrs. Gordon, Coleman & Co., ship-owners, of London, through a Mr. Zachary Pearson. Who was the real owner does not clearly appear, but Messrs. Coleman were the registered owners, and after being stripped of her warlike fittings, the Victor was delivered to them on the 10th of November. It was given out that she was destined for the China trade, and it was whispered that she might be employed in carrying opium. She was re-christened the Scylla, and government workmen belonging to Sheerness dock-yard were employed in repairing and adapting her for a mercantile yoyage—a proceeding which strikes us as strange, but which does not seem to be unusual. This went on until the 24th of November, when the scenes were shifted, and the Scylla quitted the Thames in the middle of the night, towed out by a government tug, and steered direct for Calais. By the time that she reached that port she was the Rappahannock, her old name having been painted over, and a confederate flag, according to the testimony of several witnesses, having been hoisted during the voyage. Very few, if any, regular sailors were on board at this time, but a number of boiler-makers, stokers, &c, were transported in her across the channel, and were urged by the new captain, who then appeared for the first time, to enlist in the confederate service. They were offered £8 a month wages, with £10 bounty and a prospect of prize money and “fame.” Many were induced to comply, more boiler-makers were sent for from England, coals were taken in, and the unlawful equipment of a confederate cruiser was advancing rapidly towards completion, when the French government intervened and marred the whole plot by closing the egress from Calais.

We have next to see what part Mr. Rumble played in this mysterious transaction, and, that we may be in no danger of misrepresenting it, we shall here follow the guidance of the lord chief justice. It was not denied that from the time of the sale to that of the departure for Calais, while the Scylla was the property of a private firm, he was constantly on board, and provided her with men, who were afterwards solicited to enlist under the confederate flag. Without relying too much on the details of conversations as reported by witnesses of very doubtful credit, it is abundantly evident that he gave active assistance to the owner in hiring a crew. Not only so, but ne certainly used expressions implying that they” might [Page 159] took for larger profits than could be expected in the ordinary merchant service. If we believe all that was sworn on behalf of the Crown, we must suppose that he went much further than this; that he talked, for instance, of gray uniforms, and afterwards openly declared that he was going to see the confederate agent; but this last assertion was emphatically denied by parties alleged to have been present at the time, and whose attendance was procured for the adjourned trial. It is also fair to point out that, whatever Mr. Rumble’s impressions or suspicions may have been, almost every one else really believed that the vessel was going to China, and that the engagements actually made by him were merely temporary. In fact, it was contended by his counsel that the voyage to Calais was nothing more, at least so far as he was aware, than “a trial trip,” and that he had no idea of abetting a scheme for placing her beyond the reach of English law, where the foreign enlistment act might be safely defied. The objection to this charitable view was that, after the dènouement at Calais, when the confederate flag had been hoisted and confederate officers were in command of the Rappahannock, Mr. Rumble “neither remonstrated with those who (as it is represented) had made him their dupe and their tool in the transaction, nor did he wash his hands of all further participation in the enterprise, but, on the contrary, he went on engaging men, and seeking them out for the purposes of engagement.” He not only sent them, but himself took them over to Calais, and induced them to work on the ship, and, though an innocent motive for this journey was suggested, we must attribute such an act on the part of a government officer, under such cir cumstances, to imprudence of a kind that is hardly credible. But, then, as the lord chief-justice reminded the jury, the offence charged was one that must have been committed in this country. Though Mr. Ramble’s conduct at Calais might be conclusive proof that he had then a guilty knowledge of the vessel’s true character, and an intention to assist the confederate agents, it could only be used indirectly and retrospectively to show what his purpose was in engaging men at Sheerness. The jury, who had already intimated an opinion that he was not cognizant of the Scylla’s destination at the earlier stage, gave a favorable construction to the whole affair, and Mr. Rumble may congratulate himself on having sailed very near the wind with impunity.

There are many to whom this result, like that of the Alexandra case, will seem thoroughly unsatisfactory, and who may hastily impute to the imperfection of our law what is really due to the shadowy nature of the facts to be proved. A breach of the foreign enlistment act in some respects resembles an act of bribery, and is perfectly unlike most crimes and misdemeanors. A man cannot commit murder or burglary by proxy, nor can there be much doubt as to the animus of those to whom, whether as principals or accessories, such deeds are brought home. But the criminality of an illegal enlistment may be so distributed among various parties that a conviction can hardly be obtained. By a judicious reticence, A may keep the dangerous secret locked up in his own breast, while B, who asks no questions, does the work at his request, and C, a stranger to all that has happened, gives the finishing stroke of illegality at the last moment. Where both are so liberally rewarded, in promises at least, the arts of evasion will keep pace with the arts of espionage. The interposition of a “French firm” between the purchasers of the Scylla and the confederate agents would have made it difficult to convict any British subject whatever of equipping the Rappahannock contrary to law. At the same time, the system of “ nursing” witnesses, plying them with unlimited refreshment and amusement and supplies of money, which was found to have been carried on by federal agents, weakened the credit which would otherwise have been due to their statements. It was a case in which diamonds were employed to cut diamonds, and it is not without a sense of satisfaction that we learn how unprofitable these clandestine dealings sometimes turn out. Mr. Pearson, who does not deny that he has sent the confederates ships (of what kind he does not specify.) complains piteously that while the federals robbed him of the ships, the confederates refused to pay for them. It is possible, therefore, to burn one’s fingers in these speculations without coming within the grasp of the law. In this instance a tolerable profit was realized, for the vessel, after undergoing some repairs, was sold for £20,000, part of which was paid in cotton bonds. It is not for us to say how British merchants can reconcile such questionable dealings with their consciences, but that dockyard officials should be parties to them is absolutely intolerable. So far from agreeing with Mr. Bovill’s strictures on the prosecution of Mr. Rumble, we hold that our government was morally bound to undertake it, and that it has elicited facts which more than justify its interference.

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

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward

[Untitled]

[Untitled]

[Untitled]