2234. Why do you complain of the Admiralty having done that in 1844, which we find was part of the existing arrangement between the East India Company and the Peninsular and Oriental Company in 1841?--The question of horse power began with the Peninsular and Oriental Company in 1840. 2235. And I to understand from you, that in your opinion the Admiralty should have laid down no general condition about horse power, but should have inquired into the capabilities of each particular ship; is that your view?--Certainly, that is one view; But as you said, just now, I had stated that the Peninsular and Oriental Company had originated that condition about horse power; that is the hinge upon which all the mischief has turned; and I will now, if I may be allowed, explain how it occurred. 2236. The hinge upon which all the mischief has turned, has been that condition about horse power?--Yes. 2237. Whatever imputations you have made against the Admiralty of favouritism, have turned upon improperly requiring a compliance with that condition?--I do not say that; I say the two things are quite distinct; but if you will allow me to state how it did occur, I can explain it; I have a statement here to show how it originated, and another statement to show what “horse power” really means. I beg to state that the question of horse power originated in 1840, and it was the proposal of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; it originated with them, and not with the Admiralty or the East India Company. 2254. Do you impute corrupt conduct to the Admiralty, in reference to the ship “India?”--Certainly not; I think the Committee are labouring under a mistake in that respect. 2255. If, in any part of your former examination, you have been understood to impute either to the Board of Admiralty, or to any other Government department, any favouritism towards the Peninsular and Oriental Company, to the exclusion of their competitors, you have been misunderstood?--As far as the facts are on record, I could get no answer to my tender; I imputed certainly not a corrupt motive, but I said that all along I believed they were under a mistake, induced by this nominal “horse power.” 2256. In answer to question 2216, you stated that in 1841 the steamer “India” was excluded, by the conditions imposed by the East India Company, but that the Peninsular and Oriental Company wished them to accept her?--Yes, that is so. 2257. It was, therefore, the East India Company, and not the Peninsular and Oriental Company, who insisted upon the higher amount of horse power?--The two things are quite distinct. 2258. Do you adhere to your answer to question 2216?--So far it is correct that she was excluded, but the Peninsular Company, after they had bought her, urged the East India Company to accept her, and said she was an efficient vessel; they had abused her before, but they then said she was efficient. 2259. Are you now speaking of 1841?--Yes.