and the owners expended £7,000 in effecting alterations to make her a most efficient ship. Not content with the local survey they had her re-classified at Lloyd’s. She proved herself a sea-worthy ship, even on the occasion of her last voyage, by running under adverse conditions from Wilson’s Promontory to Cape Schanck without shipping any water, and it was only when Captain Mathieson in a reckless moment altered her course to the Heads, in a tremendous sea and heavy weather, that she foundered. Any of the largest steamers would have foundered under similar circumstances. Unless it was proved that the defendants, as reasonable men, were not satisfied that the ship was sea-worthy, the plaintiff had no case whatever. Was there any evidence to show that the _Alert_ was unsea-worthy? He would ask the jury to say that the defendants were not in any way to blame, and that the disaster, which they all deplored, was an act of God. He desired to apologise to the jury for being unable to produce, notwithstanding his promise to do so, the person who, in addition to Ponting, actually witnessed the foundering of the _Alert_ at sea. During the course of his remarks, Mr. Purves pointed out that a good deal had been said by the witnesses for the plaintiff about the fact of the _Alert_ being rigged with only a foremast. In contradiction to this theory of danger it was only necessary to draw the attention of the jury to the fact that the steamships of Her Majesty’s navy—the best ships in the world—had no masts at all! They were merely fitted with flag-poles for signalling purposes. Some of the most incredible stories had been told concerning the wreck of the _Alert_. For instance, the witness Ponting had said that “flames and smoke came out of the vessel’s funnel as she sank.” The thing was simply impossible. (Here Mr. Purves spoke with great emphasis and considerable warmth.) “Why hang it, gentlemen of the jury, the fires must have been out a considerable time before the ship went down!” The learned gentleman then concluded an impassioned appeal by drawing marked attention to the fact of the plaintiff, Mrs. Kilpatrick, having attended the court with her baby every day since the trial began, when she ought to have been at home attending to her household duties. He (Mr. Purves) could see no other object in her conduct than that she was desirous, through her presence, and that of her infant, of enlisting the sympathy of the jury. He was sure, however, that those gentlemen would not be misled, but would, in bringing in a verdict for the defendants, estimate her attendance in court at its true worth.