JONES.

_Fifth "Banc."_ Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD, Mr. BALDWIN, Sir JAMES CRAIG, Mr.
DENIS HENRY, Mr. NEAL.

_Sixth "Banc."_ Mr. MONTAGU, Dr. MACNAMARA, Mr. MCCURDY, Mr. IAN
MACPHERSON, Sir A. MOND.]

_Monday, August, 9th._--In an atmosphere of appropriate gloom the House of
Lords discussed the latest Coercion Bill for Ireland. Even the LORD
CHANCELLOR could say little more for the measure than that it might
possibly enable some of the persons now in custody to be tried; and most of
the other Peers who spoke seemed to think that it would be either
mischievous or useless. The only confident opinion expressed was that of
the elderly Privy Councillor, who from the steps of the Throne ejaculated,
"If you pass this Bill you may kill England, not Ireland." But despite this
unconventional warning the Peers took the risk.

The event of the day in the House of Commons was Colonel WEDGWOOD'S tie. Of
ample dimensions and of an ultra-scarlet hue that even a London and
South-Western Railway porter might envy, it dominated the proceedings
throughout Question-time. Beside it Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHER'S pink shirt paled
its ineffectual fires.

When Viscount CURZON renewed his anti-charabancs campaign and Sir ERIC
GEDDES was doing his best to maintain an even mind amid the contradictory
suggestions showered upon him, the Ministerial eye was caught by the red
gleam from Colonel WEDGWOOD'S shirt-front. At once, the old railway
instinct reasserted itself. Recognizing the danger-signal and hastily
cramming on his brakes, Sir ERIC observed that it would be "a great
calamity" to prevent the economic use of the charabancs.

_Tuesday, August 10th._--As Lord Great Chamberlain, and therefore official
custodian of the Palace of Westminster, Lord LINCOLNSHIRE mentioned with
due solemnity the regrettable incident of the day before. Lord CURZON
thought the offender (the Right Hon. A. CARLISLE) should be allowed to
explain his behaviour, and suggested that he should himself address to him
a suitable letter. Several noble lords--anticipating, no doubt, that,
whatever else came of it, the correspondence would furnish lively
reading--said "Hear, hear."

A week ago the Peers decided by a very small majority--28 to 23--that there
should be no Minister of Mines, but only an Under-Secretary. Lord PEEL now
sought to induce them to change their minds. His principal argument was
that a Minister would only cost five hundred pounds a year more than a
Secretary and wo