as preconcerted; and their organs in the press supported their course by the silly and ridiculous allegation that there was "very little to answer" in the speech of the Duke of Argyll. And yet that speech had two things about it which, to most men, would have appeared to require that the Opposition leaders should have shown that they were something better than dumb dogs. In the first place, it directly charged them with the utterances of inaccuracies and misrepresentations throughout the country; and in the second place, it asked for a formal approval and endorsement by the House of Lords of the policy which they themselves have been assiduously denouncing from John o' Groat's House to the Land's End. When men are accused of misrepresentations and inaccuracies, their silence can only be taken as an admission of the truth of the charge; and the future harangues of the Gladstonian leaders throughout the country will be discounted and discredited by the knowledge that they have made this admission, advisedly and deliberately, in a place wherein they had every opportunity of denial and defence. It is no excuse to allege that they would have been left in a hopeless minority if they had opposed the resolution. This might have been an excellent excuse for not putting the House of Lords to the trouble of a division, but was no excuse at all for refusing to reply to an accusation under which they would never have remained silent, but for the knowledge that they had no reply to make, and no explanation to offer, which would pass muster either with the House of Lords or with the British people. There can be little doubt that this incident was little less damaging to the Separatist party than their defeat upon Mr J. Morley's proposed vote of censure upon the Government. The one united the Unionist majority in the House of Commons, the other exposed the weakness and want of courage of the Separatist minority in the House of Lords. Both events must have been highly satisfactory to the Government, who may be grateful to their opponents for a course of tactics in both Houses which has done much to destroy any casual ill effects caused by the bye-elections in the earlier part of the session, and to reconsolidate and strengthen the Unionist party.
It will be doubted by many whether that cause will be eventually strengthened by the course of events consequent upon the trial of the suit "O'Donnell v. Walter," the proceedings connected with which have caused another interruption to the legitimate business of the session. It is not our province nor our intention to offer any opinion upon the merits of a case still sub judice, or indeed to refer to it further than as a historical episode out of which has been created a precedent which may not improbably result in future inconvenience. Stripped of all gloss and of the colouring with which party imagination can clothe a simple matter, it is evident that "the leading journal" has published respecting certain individuals that which, if untrue, constitutes a gross libel. The parties so libelled desired an inquiry before a select Committee of the House of Commons, of which some of them were members. To this there appeared to be two objections, each conclusive against such an inquiry. First, the alleged libel did not affect these parties
