the number of men that would be employed on the lines, and the amount of money that would be expended on labour.  As far as he could remember, those two were the only points questioned by the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and since then, they had been taunted by the right hon. member for Portsmouth, for not having replied to the objections made in those respects to the plan of the noble member for Lynn.  He did not know on what authority the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement as to the amount of money that would be expended in labour; but he wondered it had not occurred to the right hon. member for Portsmouth, that even upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s own showing, the right hon. gentleman must have made a gross mistake.  The right hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten that, under the Bill of the noble lord, the member for Lynn, for every L4,000,000 which the Government would have to provide, the railway companies would provide L2,000,000 more.  Now, the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Baring, allowed 25 per cent. for earthworks; but he only allowed that 25 per cent. on the L4,000,000, which would make L1,000,000 to be devoted to earthworks; whereas he ought to have allowed it on the L6,000,000, which would have made the amount L1,500,000.  So that, by his own showing, the right hon. gentleman was at least wrong in regard to that point.  He (Mr. Hudson) would give figures which would clearly show, that the noble lord’s calculation was below the average amount in regard to labour, and that instead of L1,500,000, it would be nearly L4,000,000 that would be expended under that head, under his plan.  Take, for instance, the expenses in constructing the North Midland Railway.  That line cost, on the average, L40,000 per mile.  The land cost L5,500 per mile; the permanent way cost between L5,000 and L6,000 per mile, and the parliamentary expenses about L2,000.  There was an expenditure of, say, L13,000 per mile; and to what did the right hon. gentleman suppose the remaining L27,000 were devoted?  That was a line of great expense and large works; but there was the York and North Midland, a line of comparatively small expense and small works, and that line cost an average of L23,000 per mile; the land having cost not more than L1,800 per mile, and the permanent way L5,500.  Now, he wanted to know in what the remainder was spent?  Why, undoubtedly, in labour.  In the Leeds and Bradford, again—­a more recently constructed line—­of which the expenses had been L33,000 per mile, there had been L17,000 per mile to be calculated on the side of labour.  The permanent way included sleepers and other things connected with the works.  They might, perhaps, say there was a great consumption of bricks; but they could not make bricks without the employment of much labour—­and with such facts as these before them, how was it possible they could doubt the accuracy of the statements of the noble lord who had brought forward this measure, and that the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was grossly mistaken.  The right hon. gentleman, too, had said, that the number of men per mile was about twenty-five or thirty; but on the Orleans line there were as many as 130 per mile.  He really thought the right hon. gentleman ought to be better informed before he came down to the House and impugned the statements of other gentlemen."[209]