* * * * *

ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Monday, May 12th.—­Lord FRENCH’S newspaper revelations were brought to the notice of Mr. CHURCHILL, who adduced the cases of the late Lords WOLSELEY and ROBERTS as evidence that Field-marshals, when unemployed, have always been allowed considerable freedom of criticism.  The fact that Lord FRENCH is Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and (nominal) Commander-in-Chief of the considerable army employed in that country makes no difference; but ordinary serving officers are still subject to the Regulations and will take FRENCH leave at their peril.

In the course of a further discussion on milk—­prices, about which the West Country is still up in arms, Mr. MCCURDY dropped the remark that it was impossible to control cream, owing, no doubt, to its notorious insurrectionary tendencies; and Colonel WEIGALL removed a load of suspicion from some of our minds by the emphatic declaration that “a cow was not a pump, of which the supply could be turned off or on as one liked.”

The FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS was not very hopeful about the removal of the buildings which disfigure the Parks.  The most he could say was that he was doing his best to get the camouflage school out of Kensington Gardens, and let nature have a chance.

Tuesday, May 13th.—­The Lords defeated the Government by inserting in the Ministry of Health Bill a provision that the new Minister should have only one Parliamentary Secretary.  In vain Lord SANDHURST protested that the amendment would tie the PRIME MINISTER’S hands.  Lord MIDLETON was delighted to think that it would.  Lord CREWE declared that the creation of minor Ministers was becoming a disease (possibly the Ministry of Health will include it among “notifiable” epidemics?).  Lord BLEDISLOE quoted the old tag about big fleas and little fleas.  But after all there must be some check to the inveterate tendency to somnolence in the public offices.

When the Ways and Communications Bill was before the Commons the Minister-Designate buttressed his case with the alarming statement that there would be a deficit of one hundred millions this year on the working of the railways.  Members were therefore surprised to find in the Budget that only sixty millions was provided to meet it.  Even in these days a discrepancy of forty millions does not pass entirely unnoticed.  When taxed with it, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN said he thought it was due to Government traffic not having been allowed for in the original calculation, but advised his questioner to ask Sir ERIC GEDDES to explain.  For some reason—­can it be the formidable appearance of the GEDDES chin?—­Sir JOSEPH WALTON did not seem greatly pleased at the prospect.