gave it as his opinion that "if officers"--he was speaking of the army
not the police--"were prouder of their uniforms, and did not take
the earliest opportunity of divesting themselves of them, the uniform
would be more respected." He ought to have put it, "would be uniformly
more respected." But how about the man inside the uniform? But why
should a soldier wear his uniform when off duty any more than a
policeman when off duty, or any more than a barrister should wear his
wig, bands, and gown, when not practising in the Courts? There is one
person who should always wear a distinctive uniform, and that is a
Clergyman, who is never off duty. Perhaps this is already provided for
by the Act of Uniformity.

Mr. JOHN HOLLINGSHEAD, after expressing his opinion that Mr. IRVING
had been "seeing visions,"--which of course is quite an Irvingite
characteristic,--proposed to put everything right everywhere, and be
the Universal Legislator and Official Representative of Everybody.
Salary not so much an object as a comfortable home, a recognised
official position, and "No Fees." (The Commission still sitting
may perhaps dissolve itself, and appoint the last witness as Sole
Theatrical and Music Hall Commissioner, with no power to add to his
number.)

* * * * *

ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

EXTRACTED FROM THE DIARY OF TOBY, M.P.

_House of Commons, Monday, May 9_.--House dealt with just now after
manner of Horticultural Exhibition at Earl's Court. Laid out as three