The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-22 00:00:00

TALLOW.

The tallow trade is steady to-day, and prices were toler-
ably firm. St. Petersburg Y.C, is quoted at 42s 9d per
cwt. on the spot, and 45s 9d for October to December deli-

very. Rough fat,

cash.

Stock this day....
Price of Y.C.
Delive:7 last week
Ditto from June 1
Arrivals last week
Ditto from June 1
Price of Town

2s 2d per 8lbs; town tallow, 4

1559. 1850. 1861

12,,P5) 24,968 ) 56,188 C 35,3 9
,ss9d to's2s3d t0,5253d t44689d to
—s Od 53s 3d 53s :-1d 478 Oct
1,028 1,821 843 2,110
3,301 6,221 3,315 5,147
1,'12 1,234 731 1 1,057
3,585 4,0':,8 3,046 2,184
55s 9d 53s 68 528 08 47s 3d

Is 3d net

1863.

37,430
42s 9d to
—s Od
753
2,:z35

1,921
43s 9d

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron Pollock.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SILLE3I.—TRE CASE OF

THE ALEXANDRA.

The Court was crowded at an early hour this morning by
persons anxious to hear this important case.
The Attorney-Ger/era], the Solicitor-General, Sir H.
Phillimore, and Mr. Locke, Q.C., were for the Crown; Sir
Hugh Cairns, Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Kemplay were
for the defendant.

The Attorney-General, in opening the proceedings, said
the case was one with which the gentlemen of the jury
could not be supposed to have any familiar acquaintance,
for although the act under which the action was brought
was passed in 1819, this, he believed, was the first occa-
sion on which proceedings had taken place under it. This
was an information by the Attorney-General, the act under
which the information was brought being the Foreign En-
listment Act. In April last a seizure was made of the Alex-
andra en grounds which, if established, would make out the
forfeiture of the vessel. Five gentlemen at Liverpool, car-
rying on business as iron merchants, under the names of
Fawcett, Preston, and Co., made an affidavit at the time of
the seizure that the vessel was their property, and they were
allowed to put in an appearance which threw on the Crown
to justify the seizure and confirm the forfeiture. The pro-
ceeding. had arisen out of hostilities between the United
States and States which were formerly willing members
of the Union, now called the Confederate States, ali
quarrel in which he need not remind the jury this country
took no part. In 1861 certain States, now known as the
Confederate or Southern States, determined to secede from
the other States, now generally known as the Federal States.
That soon resulted in a war between the Federal and the
Southern States, which had now lasted more than two years,
involving both parties in great suffering, of which they
could not at present see any hope of termination. The war
having broken out, it soon became apparent that it was ne-
cessary to warn the people of this country against falling by
inadvertence or ignorance of the law into difficulties with
regard to either of these belligerents. Accordingly a pro-
clamation was issued, dated the 13th of May, 1861, inform-
ing her Majesty's subjects that the Government of Eng-
land would observe a strict neutrality, calling atten-
tion to the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and
warning the people against any violation of the principles
of international law. They had heard from time to time
of rumours that the Confederate States had sought assistance
in the way of ships from Liverpool ; though they were not
there to try the question of the Alabama, yet it was well
known that that vessel proceeded from Liverpool, that she
left that port without an armament, that she obtained an
armament on the seas, and that she was now avowedly
acting under the flag of the Confederate States, and had
vindicated her right to that character by no sparing inter-
ference with commerce and the ships of her Majesty. In
April, 1863, information was received which justified her
Majesty's Government in ordering the Alexandra to be
seized as a forfeited vessel, and it had remained up to the
present time in the custody of the officers by whom the '
seizure was made. The vessel was in a dock at Liverpool,
called the Toxteth Dock. She was launched on the previous
month from the yard of Messrs. Miller, by whom she
had been built. Immediately after the launch she was taken
up the river, and into the Toxteth dock for completion. The
workmen of Messrs. Miller were still engaged upon her, and,
except that a change of place had been made, the state of
things remained the same as before the vessel left Messrs.
Miller's yard. The vessel was of no very great size, only
about 120 tons, but she was built very strongly of teak wood ,
and evidently with a warlike destination. The charge in
effect was, that the Alexandra was fitted out, equipped, or
attempted to be equipped, to cruise and to commit hostili-
ties against a Government with which her Majesty was not
at war, viz., the United States of America, and to be placed
in the service of the Confederate States. With regard to
the Messrs. Miller, it appeared that they traded under
their own name, but that was not the case with the firm of
Fawcett, Prescott, and Co., who claimed the vessel, for it
appeared that that firm actually consisted of persons whose
names were Herman James Sellern, Henry Berton Preston,
Jacob Wilbak, and David William Thomas. These gen-
tlemen supplied iron and guns for the vessel, and he should
prove that they were in constant communication with Capt.
Tessier, Capt. Bullock, and other agents of the Confederate
Government, as well as with Liverpool, who were known to
have connections of an extensive character with the Confe-
derate States. The fair inference he should contend was
that the Confederate Government had a direct interest in
the vessel; and that when it was completed and had be-
come a vessel of war, it should be made applicable for the
service of the Government of the Confederate States, who
bad no regularly constituted navy. He would show also
by an unreserved statement made by young Mr. Miller,
that the Alexandra was intended for the Southern or Con-
federate States. The learned Attorney-General then pro-
ceeded to detail to the jury the nature of the evidence he
intended to call in support of his charge.
He then proceeded to call witnesses.
Mr. Edward Morgan, examined by the Solicitor-General,
said he was Surveyor of the Customs at Liverpool. By
direction of her Majesty's Government be seized the Alex-
andra on the sth of April last. He observed her from the
time she was in the stocks. She was launched in March.
He knew Mr. Miller and his sons. Mr. Thomas Miller,
one of the sons, was active about the yard. When he seized
her Mr. Miller's men were at work on her, (Witness de-
scribed the tonnage of the ship, her principal details, and
her condition.) The sth of April was on Sunday. The
works continued until the 9th, when he stopped them.

Cross-examined by Mr Kerslake, Q.C.—He acted under
the directions of Mr. Price Edwards, the Collector of Cus-
toms at Liverpool. The vessel was built in the , and of
Mr. Miller. Several surveyors inspected the vessel, which
was an object of attraction.
By the Judge—He had been told that Mr. Miller stood
alone, and that there was no firm. He had had no tran-
sactions of a business character with them.
Mr. Ackland (examined by the Queen's Advocate) said he
knew the firm of Miller and Co., and had been employed by
them as watchman. He remembered the Alexandra being
constructed while he was there, and---
The Queen's Advocate—Did you ever hear the Alexandra
called by any name oc description by Mr. Miller or his sons ?
The Judge—The object of that question, I presume, is to
ascertain what was meant to be her future destination?

The Attorney-General said it was rather to ascertain
what was the real position of the ship at that time.
Sir H. Cairns objected to the question, and some argu-
ment took place upon it, in the courso of which it was
agreed that the question should apply to Mr. Miller only,
and not to his sons.

The Judge said he could not receive the question for the
object stated. Mr.. Miller was not the owner of the vessel,
and if the question cculd be put it could only amount to
this—that it would be the admission of one man of another
man's guilt. Miller was employed to build the ship,—not
to make, admissions, conks:ions, or statements as to the
character of the ship.

The Attorney-General said he should feel it his duty to
tender a bill of exceptions to his lordship's ruling.
The Judge said he thought he should be endangering
the case if he admitted the evidence.
Examination of Mr. Acland continued—He knew the firm
of Fawcett, Preston, and Co., but none of the men who
worked for them. He had seen a person named Hamilton
in Miller's yard once or twice a week. A gentleman named
Mellish came with him. They looked alter the Alexandra
together, but they did not give any orders with respect
to her. Ho saw a person named Mann, of the firm of
Fawcett and Preston on board, but he never heard him give
any orders about the Alexandra. Mr. Mann paid three or
four visits of an hour or halt an hour each. He never saw
Mr. Mann go on board any other ship. They had orders
admitting them into the yard, but he did not know the or-
ders had anything to do with the Alexandra.

Cross-examined by Mr. Karslake, Q.C.—He had no-
thing to do with building ships. His duty was to stand
at the gate until ho was discharged. He was discharged
about six weeks ago. He had been driving a car since that
time. After leaving Millers' he went to see a man named
Barnes. He did not take him down to Maguire or Cousin's.
Maguire was a detective. It was a fortnight or three weeks
after he left Miller's that he saw Maguire.
Re-examined by the Attorney• General.—He was quite
sure that, Bullock came With Hamilton. Bullock was a
little man with dark whiskers and beard.

Mr. W. Barnes, an engine driver, examined by Mr.

Locke, Q.C., said ho went into Mr. Miller's service at Tox-
teth Dock about four years ago. He drove the engine. Ho
left nearly three mouths ago. He left because he com-
mitted himself. He got a sup of drink and went away
from his work. He remembered a vessel called the Oreto,
built in their yard about 16 months ago. He remembered
the Penguin and the Steady being built by Messrs. Miller
for the English Government. That was about three years
ago, He frequently went on board the boats to look at
them. The Penguin and Steady were gunboats. He re-

membered a screw steamer called the Alexandra being built
there. She was like the other gunboats, only smaller. He
remembered Captain Tessier coming to the yard while the
Alexandra was being built. He was the captain of the
Phantom, a steamboat which was being built in Millers'
yard. The Phantom wlts being built at the same time with
the Alexandria. He never heard him give instructions about
either, but looked at both, He used to walk round and look
at all the vessels. He knew Mr. Speers, Messrs . Fawcett
and Preston's overlooker, who came to the yard to see
Fawcett and Preston's men, who were engaged in bringing
out on the Alexandria and Phantom. The boilers was
placed in the Alexandria by Fawcett and Prestonis men.
He did not know where the boilers came from. He knew
Mr. Mann, one of the firm of Fawcett, Preston, and Co.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mellish, Q.C.—He had nothing
to do with shipbuilding. The Phantom was not a gun-
This was like a mershant vessel. _ _

Mr. Alexander Robinson examined by Mr. Jones, said
he was a joiner, previously in the service of Fawcett, Pres-
ton, and Co. It was his business to make gun carriages
He had made carriages for three guns in particular— pivot
guns. There was one large gua and two smaller. He was
assisted by a workman named Jo_ eph Carter. He had seen
a gentleman called Hamilton there, while the carriages
were in course of construction. He knew the boat Alex-
andra, and was about an hour at one time fixing a frame for
the pitch of the propeller shaft. He was directed to do so
by Messrs. Fawcett and Preston's foreman.
Cross-examined by Sir H. Cairns, Q.C.--Messrs. Fawcett
and Preston were very extensive engineers, and supplied
many steam vessels. They made a good many guns in the
course of the year. They had done so for many years. A
great many people came to see Messrs. Fawcett's work, and
what was done there.

Mr. Joseph Carter, a joiner, living at Liverpool, said he
was in the service of Fawcett and Preston 20 or 21 months.
He and the last witness left for an advance of wages. He
had been on board the Alexandra since she was seized.
That was the vessel for which he worked, and which in the
workshop was called 2,209 while he was engaged in the
machinery. The machinery made for 2,209 he afterwards
saw on board the Alexandra in Toxteth Dock. He had fre-
quently seen Mr. Hamilton in the machinery department.
Some carriages and guns were being prepared at the same
time as the machinery. Each gun had a separate
number. The smaller guns were fired. He could net say
whether the guns were manufactured for the same vessel as
the machinery. He had seen the Alexandra since she was
seized. The larger gun would stand about four feet and the
smaller ones about three feet in the carriages. Mr. Sillem,
one of the partners, was frequently in the shop while the
works were going on. He paid particular attention to the
guns—that was his department. He had frequently seer.
Mr. Hamilton with Mr. Sillem together inspecting the ma-
chinery and guns, and discussing certain impravemants.
The carriages were made of English elm, and the slides of
teak wood. The teak wood was obtained from Miller's
yard. He had worked at guns which, it was supposed, were
for the Oreto, but he had no actual knowledge of the fact.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.

;Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

DICKSON V. LORD COMBERMERE, AND OTHERS.

The further trial of this action, brought by Lieutenant-
Colonel Dickson against Lord Combermere, General Peel,
and the Earl of Wilton to recover damages from the defen-
dants for injuries sustained by him, viz., the loss of his
commission after 33 years service, was resumed this

morning.
The alleged sans° of action, it will be borne in mind, is
that Lord Combermere, as Constable of the Tower, having
certain official connections from that position with the 2d
Queen's Own Tower Hamlets Militia, of which Colonel
Dickson was commanding officer, conspired with
General Peel, when Secretary of War, at the
instigation of the Earl of Wilton, honorary
colonel-in •chief of the regiment, to deprive the
plaintiff of his commission upon false charges brought
by the last named defendant against him. The examina-
tion and cross examination of the plaintiff cmcluded at the
last sitting of the Court, and the witnesses examined this
morning were principally persons who were connected with
the actions brought after the disembodiment of the regi-
ment for goods supplied by them for the use of the officers'

mess.
The plaintiff's case is not expected to close before late to-
morrow.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

STREET PREACRING.—Loring D. Dewar, 33, Chenies-
street, composer, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with
causing a crowd of persons to assemble in Upper Fitzroy-
street by preaching, and thereby causing an obstruction to
the annoyance of the inhabitants.
From the evidence of Inspector Garforth, of the E divi-
sion, it appeared that on the previous evening he saw the
defendant preaching and a large number of persons round
him. The inhabitants complained of the nuisance, and he
told the defendant that he must desist, and he did so, but
went a little further and began again, and he was at length
obliged to take him into custody.
In answer to a question, Mr. Garforth said the passage of
the street was obstructed by the defendant, who wanted to
argue with him as to his right to be there.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said the inspector had only done what was
right.
Defendant said everything was quite peaceful; there was
no noise; and when he was told by the police that he must
leave, he wanted to know whether he was only to go from
the spot he was on, or to leave the street altogether.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said that if the defendant caused an ob-
struction by his preaching he was within the law. When
the p.olic3 were spoken to by the inhabitants they were
obliged to interfere. There was no opposition to persons
preaching so long as they did not cause an obstruction. He
would take the defendant's own recognisances that he would
not offend again.