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 consent of all.  But the best of theories do not always stand the test of practice and so it was found in this case.  It did not suit Ireland.  We discovered that the Irish railways were, in equity, entitled to more than the scheme awarded them, and Mr. Alcorn, the Accountant of the Great Southern and Western Railway, discovered the way to set the matter right; but it could not be righted without the consent of the Parcel Post Conference, a body which sat at the Railway Clearing House in London, and was composed of the managers of all the railways parties to the parcel post scheme, some eighty or so in number.  On the 10th November, 1892, we brought our case before that body, and Colhoun, Robertson and I were the spokesmen for the Irish Railways.  On the previous day we had met Sir George Findlay