2311. You have stated that the “India” has been running on the line between Calcutta and Suez?--I never said that she was running on the line; she was employed on the line; she was receiving a certain portion of the money paid for the contract. I suppose about £15,000 a year would be her proportion. 2312. Are you aware that she never left her moorings?--Yes. 2313. The Peninsular and Oriental Company bought her, did they not?--Yes; after a desperately hard bargain. 2314. Are you aware that she was full of dry rot at the time they bought her?--Yes, but I am aware that they deducted £1,300 from the £15,000 which they engaged to pay, in consequence of that; and I am also aware that they told me it would require £15,000 to repair her when they offered £23,000 for her; and I sent in the same drawings that I had sent in to the Admiralty, and offered to do it for £8,000, upon which they said, we will give you £15,000. 2315. Are you aware that the “India” has been broken up?--I never heard it till now. 2316. You stated that the Peninsular Company sent out to the China line two old vessels?--Yes, they were used in the Peninsular lines. 2317. What were their names?--The “Lady Mary Wood” was one, and the “Braganza” was the other. 2318. Are you not aware that in 1844 the “Lady Mary Wood” was only two years old?--Yes, I know it perfectly. 2319. Would you call her an old vessel?--Yes, she had been a good deal used there; the best proof of her age is, that she was inefficient before she could be relieved. 2320. How do you know that?--I have heard so. 2321. Are you aware that the “Braganza” was within a few months of the same age as the “India?”--I do not know that; I know that she had some repairs before she went there; such repairs as I should have given the “India.” 2322. You said that you expected to hire in India a vessel called the “Fire Queen?”--I never said a word about the “Fire Queen;” the “Fire Queen” we had nothing to do with; the vessels which I mentioned are mentioned here. 2323. It is in the answer to question 2135: “In Bengal, the ‘Forbes,’ ‘India,’ ‘Dwarkanauth Tagore,’ ‘Henderson,’ and ‘Gordon;’ at Singapore, ‘The Royal Sovereign,’ ‘Express,’ and ‘Windsor Castle;’ on her passage out to India, the ‘Fire Queen,’ built for a Calcutta Company?”--If you look you will see that those are mentioned as the ships that are in India, I did not say that I had them; that is a quotation from a letter to Mr. Sidney Herbert, stating that there are those vessels there. 2324. But the India Steam Company possessed no other vessel than the “India,” did they?--No. 2325. In one of your answers you stated first, that “no honest man,” which you afterwards qualified by saying, “no man intending to act honestly, would sign a contract with such stringent clauses and penalties for over-times on arrivals?”--I did not say, “no honest man” would sign it. I said that you would not like to undertake such things, if you could not honestly undertake to do them.