2217. In your former examination, in answer to question 1835, you stated, “The 500-horse power was put in purposely to exclude all but the Peninsular Company’s vessels.” Will you state upon what grounds you attribute to the Admiralty, in 1844, a condition which appears to have been in force against you, by the orders of the East India Company, as early as 1841?—I had intended to commence the examination by referring to my statement with respect to that very case. It is so put here that I really cannot understand it myself, and I must request to be allowed to make the explanation of horse power; if you will allow me to make the explanation of what I mean by horse power, I shall be able to make my answers intelligible.
2218. Are you a person of experience in nautical matters?—I profess to know all that a man who has devoted his life to the subject can know of the building and working of ships.
2219. And not only sailing ships, but steam vessels?—Yes.
2220. Are there two meanings to the term “horse power!”—No; “horse power” has no meaning at all; if you will allow me to give an explanation I can state what it is.
2221. Before you give your explanation, allow me to ask this question, whether you mean to say that the term “horse power” has no meaning?—It has no meaning as to the capacity of ships for carrying the mails; that I assert.
2222. Then when the East India Company, in 1841, put in a clause that no vessel employed in carrying the mails should be less than 500-horse power, they put in a clause which had no meaning at all?—The East India Company never put in the clause at all; it was put in by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, with the very object of excluding us.
2223. Whoever put it in, it had no meaning?—No, it has not, to my knowledge.
2224. Then, having no meaning, it had no operation or effect?—It had the effect of excluding any other vessels but their own, so long as it was allowed to remain.
2225. How did it have that effect?—The Peninsular and Oriental Company having vessels of 500-horse power, which no others had got, they of course obtained the contract.
2226. You came here, on the previous day, charging the Admiralty with having, in 1844, made a certain condition for the purpose of excluding you, and you have now stated that that condition was in force under the arrangement made by the East India Company as early as 1841. Will you have the goodness to explain to the Committee how it is that you attribute that to the Admiralty in 1844, which appears to have originated with the East India Company in 1841?—I was mistaken if I said it originated with the East India Company; it originated with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company. The horse power of a vessel gives no means of knowing what the efficiency of the vessel is. There is a good deal of the evidence of the former day which is of no use, unless you allow me to explain what horse power is. Those answers, as they stand, I cannot understand myself.