of finding a new job for Sir ERIC
GEDDES. I suppose the PRIME MINISTER said, "Here's a square peg, look you;
let us dig a hole round it."

The LORD CHANCELLOR'S reply was vigorous but not altogether convincing. His
description of the Government as a body of harassed and anxious economists
did not altogether tally with his subsequent picture of the CHANCELLOR OF
THE EXCHEQUER "always resisting proposals for expenditure made by his
colleagues in the Cabinet." Despite his eloquence the Peers passed Lord
MIDLETON'S motion by 95 votes to 23.

The Commons made good progress with the Finance Bill, though there was a
good deal of justifiable criticism of its phraseology. The SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY admitted that there was one clause of which he did not understand
a word, but wisely refused to specify it. Colonel WEDGWOOD advanced the
remarkable proposition that "the workers in the long run pay all the
taxes," but did not jump at Captain ELLIOTT'S suggestion that in that case
it would save trouble if the CHANCELLOR were to levy all the taxes on the
working classes direct. When asked to extend further relief to charities
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN sought a definition of "charity." Would it apply, for
example, to "the association of a small number of gentlemen in distress
obeying the law of self-preservation in the face of world-forces which
threaten to sweep them out of existence"? I seem to hear _Mr. Wilkins
Micawber_ reply, "The answer is in the affirmative."

_Thursday, July 8th._--In the absence of the LORD CHANCELLOR the Gas
Regulation Bill was entrusted to the UNDER-SECRETARY FOR AIR. The mingling
of gas and air has before now been known to produce an explosion, but on
this occasion Lord LONDONDERRY so deftly handled his material that not a
single Peer objected to the Second Reading.

The proceedings in the Lower House were much more lively. Mr. STANTON
threatened that there would be a general strike of Members of Parliament
unless their salaries were increased; but Mr. BONAR LAW seemed to be more
amused than alarmed at the prospect. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER was
asked point-blank whether he was satisfied with the reduction in the
bureaucracy during the last six months, and replied that he was not, and
had therefore appointed Committees to investigate the staffs in seven of
the Departments. The number is unfortunately suggestive.

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose," the Walr