"all the privileges of the House of
Lords." But Mr. BONAR LAW declined to deprive the House of Commons
in that way of one of its brightest ornaments; so the "Mad Hatter"
will not be called upon just yet awhile to exchange his traditional
headgear for a coronet.

I presume some Members of Parliament know what "non-ferrous metals"
are, and what is the object of the Bill which the Government has
introduced to deal with them. But the views which they took on the
subject were so obscurely divergent that all I could gather from the
debate was that in some way or other the measure was intended to be a
nasty knock for German trade. That was good enough for the House at
large, which passed the Second Reading by a substantial majority.

[Illustration: A HORRIBLE MENACE. MR. JOSEPH KING.]

_Wednesday, December 12th_.--Mr. PRINGLE, having asserted that
candidates for appointments under the War Office were successful
simply on account of possessing a "pull" with the Selection
Department, was quietly reminded by the UNDER-SECRETARY that he
himself had attempted to use his influence on behalf of a candidate.
Mr. PRINGLE was righteously indignant. He had never asked favours of
the War Office; he had merely "recommended men personally known to
me." This delicate distinction, which should have convinced Members
of Mr. PRINGLE'S disinterestedness, only made them laugh.

On the Vote of Credit for 550 millions the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
was invited by Mr. DILLON to make a survey of the military situation.
He replied that all the relevant facts were known already. "The War
is going on; the Government and the country intend it shall go on;
and money is necessary to make it go on." It is, perhaps, a pity that
he did not content himself with this epitome and refuse to be drawn
into a discussion of the recent operations near Cambrai. What has
Mr. DILLON done to promote the prosecution of the War that he should
receive special consideration?

There was a renewed discussion of the censorship of pamphlets. Sir
GEORGE CAVE ably defended the regulations, but did not convince
everyone that his preference for confiscation over prosecution was
entirely sound. The idea that the publishers of these pamphlets would
welcome advertisement is probably erroneous, or why was it necessary
to insist that they should put their names to them?

Mr. SPENCER HUGHES'S humorous attack upon the CENSOR was much
applauded on the Liberal benches. Some of the mo