§ Viscount Palmerstonsaid: On behalf of the South-Eastern Railway Company, I beg to offer a few words in explanation of what fell from me on the other evening. I had been informed that the reason why the engines used on that line were too weak to perform their duty, which made it necessary to have an additional engine to propel each train behind, was mistaken economy on the part of the directors of the Company. But I have since been waited on by a deputation of the directors of the Company, and they have assured me that the reason was not a mistaken economy, but a mistaken calculation, and that the persons who were 1369 directors at the time to which I referred are not directors now. They further said, that in October last, on finding that their engines were too weak, they gave directions for the construction of fresh engines. I told them that I should make this explanation to the House of Commons; but at the same time I told them I thought it was my duty to say that their explanation did not, in my opinion, afford a justification of their conduct; but that if their engines were too weak, they ought to have proportioned their trains to the strength of their engines, instead of putting two engines, one before and one behind. I am sorry to add, that from their own showing, it appears that they still resort to this dangerous practice of putting two engines to propel one train; for they assure me that it is only done on a part of the road which is very steep; and, whenever the measure is adopted, the train is not allowed to goat more than ten or twelve, or from that to fifteen miles an hour. Now, I am not an engineer, but it does appear to me that that rate is too fast under such circumstances. I think that if there is a necessity for two engines, they ought to be placed both before the train, and not one before and the other after the train; but that if a pushing or a propelling engine is attached behind, the rate of travelling ought not to be more than four miles an hour.