specially as members of the House of Commons, or deal with any speech or act of theirs spoken or done in such capacity. To grant a Committee, therefore, even if there were no other reason against it, would have afforded a precedent which would have immensely increased the future labours of the House of Commons, and would have practically substituted that body for the ordinary law courts of the country. Secondly, these regular tribunals were open to those who had alleged that they had been libelled, and there seemed no reason why they should in this particular case be less efficient and less trustworthy than in all similar matters. Against this view of the case it has been urged, on the other hand – first, that the expense of instituting an action against the 'Times' would have been enormous; and, secondly, that there may be good reasons, wholly apart from the merits of the case in question, which render it inconvenient for the parties to go into the witness-box. These contentions, however, admit of a ready reply. Those who complain of "libels" are men who are supported by a powerful organisation, well supplied with funds from another country. So vital is it to this organisation to prove that the "libels" are really "libels," that to no purpose more important to its welfare, or indeed to its very existence, could its funds be applied; and moreover, if successful, the damages which would probably be given must be taken into account in any estimate of cost. With regard to the second contention, it may be perfectly true that reasons may exist, wholly apart from this particular case, which may cause a strong disinclination on the part of Mr Parnell and his friends to enter the witness-box, and that such disinclination is quite compatible with their entire innocence of any charge contained in the alleged libel. But surely this is a case in which the person who complains of having been libelled must elect between the inconvenience of subjecting himself to cross-examination and the probability of the charges against him being believed, if he refuses to submit to that inconvenience. It is probable that a very large number of both plaintiffs and defendants in the cases tried before our law courts would infinitely prefer to keep out of the witness-box; but, so far as we are aware, this is the first case in which there has been a special interference in their behalf, and we must frankly say that we cannot recognise any claim of Mr Parnell or his friends to that interference. The proposed creation of a special tribunal in this case has apparently so far satisfied neither Mr Parnell nor his opponents, and will probably be productive of no satisfactory result. The Parnellites will claim it as a tacit acknowledgment that the ordinary tribunals of the country cannot be trusted to try this case, and that they are therefore justified in their refusal to invoke these tribunals. However eminent the persons selected to try the issues which will be before the new court, their words and actions will be severely criticised, and their decision will leave opinion divided as it is now upon the merits of those issues. It is doubtless out of a generous desire to see justice done that the Government have taken action; but it is to be feared that their departure from the beaten track will expose them to much hostile criticism, and will obtain but little gratitude from those on
