d marrow of his
admonitions. For twenty years or so from then nearly every session saw
me in the Committee Rooms, not always on the business of my own company,
as other Irish railway companies on several occasions sought my help in
their Parliamentary projects. Mr. Findlay's advice I never forgot.

In the afternoon my cross-examination began. The final question put to
me by our counsel was: "Lastly, if this amalgamation is carried out, do
you think the public would be served by it, and if so, how?" This
appeared to me a great chance for a little speech, so I summed up as
forcibly and graphically as I could all the advantages that would follow
if the Bill were passed. Then my cross-examination commenced, and the
first words addressed to me, by Mr. Pembroke Stephens, were: "I do not
think that one could have made a better speech oneself, if one had been
on your side." "Not half so good," said Mr. Littler in a stage whisper.
I thought Mr. Stephens spoke satirically, but remembered Mr. Findlay's
advice, and if I flushed inwardly, as I believe I did, no outward sign
escaped me. After Mr. Stephens, three other opposing counsel fired their
guns, but I withstood their shot and shell, and when I came out of the
box Mr. Findlay said I had done well. This was praise enough for me.
Then he gave his evidence in his usual masterly convincing way and I
listened in admiration.

We made a good fight I know, the odds were in our favour and success
seemed assured. Our opponents then presented their case, and still we
felt no doubt; but Fortune is a fickle jade and at the last she left us
in the lurch. On the eighth day of the proceedings the Chairman
announced: "The Committee are of opinion that it is not expedient to
proceed with the Bill." This was the _coup de grace_. No reasons are
ever given by a Committee for their decision and the contending parties
are left to imagine them. The losing side sometimes has the hardihood to
think a decision is wrong. I believe we thought so; and I know that
_Ennis_, who was thus doomed to a further period of single blessedness,
thought the same.

In a previous chapter I have spoken of the _Parcel Post Act_ of 1882, and
mentioned the share of the receipts apportioned to the railway companies
of the United Kingdom. The Act also prescribed the manner in which this
share was to be divided amongst the respective railways. When it was
devised the method seemed fair to all, and had the cons