down, and the whole secured with a screw bolt as well. The window opening inwards, as it did, increased the danger very much. It was a wrong thing to have a wooden fixed awning on the _Alert._ She would, in a breeze of wind on the beam, be thrown over to leeward by it. I noticed that the motion of her engines drew her stern down very much. Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: I know Lloyd’s Register of British and Foreign Shipping. There are no better surveyors than those of Lloyd’s. Every ship I have commanded was registered by Lloyd’s. Still I say the _Alert_ was not fit to go to sea. As a sea-going man of experience, I think my opinion of equal value with Lloyd’s system of underwriting. On account of her weight aft, her depth of hold, her breadth of beam, and her rig, the _Alert_ should never have been sent to sea. _Q._—You object to the deck fittings? _A._—I object to the way she was rigged. I mean the masts. _Q._—Your objection is that she had only one mast, and should have had two? _A._—Yes, that is one objection. _Q._—Why should a steamer have any masts at all? _A._—If anything occurred she could be navigated with sails. _Q._—She is perfectly able to be navigated round the world without any masts? _A._—I never heard of a steamer without a mast. If the machinery goes well, and no emergency crops up, you could do without a mast. _Q._—If you were going to purchase a ship, and could not see her, what authority would you consult? _A._—I would not purchase any ship unless I could see her myself. _Q._—Would not a tarpaulin over the grating, if cleated-battened or nailed down, keep out any sea? _A._—No, the sea would burst it down between the bars like a bit of paper. _Q._—How many hours would it take to fill the ship, if seas were continually thrown in, unprotected by a tarpaulin? _A._—It would take about half an hour. The water would also go down the ventilators if they were turned that way. I was last on board the _Alert_ two trips before the accident occurred. Re-examined by Mr. Williams: Ten or twelve tons of water would go through that cabin window in a minute. Half of fifty or sixty tons of water in the saloon would put the _Alert_ down, and she would sink stern first. LUCY EDITH KILPATRICK, examined by Mr. Box, stated: I am the widow of John Kennedy Kilpatrick. I was married to him on June 4, 1891. There is one child by the marriage called Mary. She is now two years and five months old. My husband at the time of his death was twenty-nine years old. He held a chief engineer’s certificate. He enjoyed good health, and was a strong man, and always sober. Previous to joining the _Alert_ he had been out of work for some time. His wages as second engineer of the _Alert_ were £8 per month. When he was in the employ of the Melbourne Harbour Trust as chief engineer of the dredge _Latrobe_, his wages were £22 per month. Prior to that he was working on shore, and while in work he gave me on an average £3 per week for house-keeping expenses.