1998. But he does not appear to have made any statement of that sort previous to the commencement of the voyage from Hong Kong?--There is nothing in the _précis_ to show that he did. 1999. What is the next complaint?--“On the 28th of September of the same year, Captain Ellice sent a copy of a letter from the Admiralty agent on board the ‘Lady Mary Wood,’ reporting that vessel having grounded on a bank of sand or mud off the town of Penang, and reporting the deficiency of night-signals on board her; and he states that the vessel was got off on the following day, in a fit state to proceed with the mails, and, it was supposed, would proceed with the mails to China.” 2000. What is the next complaint?--The next complaint is transmitted by Captain Ellice, who sends a report of the survey on the “Braganza,” held at Hong Kong; he sent this on the 21st of June, 1847. 2001. What is the result of the survey?--“A copy was sent to the contractors, and the contractors stated, in reply, that they had transmitted orders, some time ago, to their agent at Bombay, to have this vessel docked on the first opportunity, and had reason to believe that this had been done. They also stated that their new steamships ‘Pekin,’ of 1,200 tons and 430-horse power, and ‘Pottinger,’ of 1,400 tons and 450-horse power, are now stationed on the line between Point de Galle and China, in performance of the mail contract service.” 2002. What is the next complaint?--“On the 2nd of October, Captain Ellice transmitted an extract of a letter from the Admiralty agent on board the ‘Pekin,’ reporting the unfitness of that vessel for the mail service.” This forms a part of Lieutenant Waghorn’s complaint, and is already before the Committee. 2003. What was the result of that; was the complaint decided to be well-founded or not?--I think not. 2004. Was Lieutenant Waghorn a passenger on board that vessel?--I put in his letter on the last occasion. 2005. Will you proceed to the next complaint?--“On the 2nd of June, 1848, the Postmaster-general transmitted an extract of a letter from the post-office agent at Suez, stating that the ‘Haddington’ was detained at that port, waiting for the arrival of cargo, until one o’clock A.M. on the 11th ultimo, although the mails were put on board at ten minutes past five o’clock on the previous morning; and, further, that some of the packages forming the cargo were of an unnecessarily cumbersome size.”