2283. Do you think that if a public department, instead of laying down specific rules to which all parties must conform who make engagements with regard to the specifications of particular vessels, that would be a better mode of excluding favouritism than the mode which is now pursued?—Most assuredly it would be a proper mode.
2284. Am I right in understanding that the “India” was, afterwards, employed upon this very line by the Peninsular Company?—Yes, and they got £15,000 a year by her. They bought her for less than £15,000, and they patched her up for £1,000, and then got her surveyed in 1845, and she remained for two or three years in the contract ready to be employed, after being so patched up.
2285. Was she there as a reserve vessel?—Yes.
2286. Was there any difference in the specification of horse power for a reserve vessel, in comparison with the vessels which were to carry the mails regularly?—Yes, there was a difference, and she was admitted upon that.
2287. What was the amount of horse power required by the contract for a reserve vessel?—I suppose it must have been less than 300-horse power.
2288. Have you seen the contract?—Yes, but I do not recollect whether it was 300 or 250-horse power.
2289. Is it not customary that the reserve vessel is of less tonnage than the vessels which are regularly performing the voyages with the mails?—Yes, it is so, and we intended her to be so originally.
2290. When you tendered the “India,” did you propose her as a reserve vessel, or as one of the regular vessels to carry the mails?—We proposed her for the China line.
2291. You never proposed her for this line at all?—We could not.
2292. With reference to the Ceylon and Hong Kong contract, in the year 1844, did you tender the steamer “India” for the Ceylon and Hong Kong contract?—-Yes.