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.