[On hearing that an Archdeacon had withdrawn from the School-Board Controversy because he found himself opposed to his Bishop.]

The Archdeacon is "sorry he spoke." Not that he has changed his opinion—oh dear no! far from that. But the Bishop thinks otherwise, so the Archdeacon retires as gracefully as may be from the controversy. He is, he explains, as it were, the Bishop's "oculus"—the man to whom the Bishop can proudly point, and say "All my eye!" This theory of subordination of thought to one's superior is highly suggestive. For instance, who will be surprised to read the following highly authentic document, now made public for the first time.

To the Editor of the Once a-Month Review.

Dear Sir,—With reference to my article "Is Horse-racing Justifiable?" I desire to make known that while I still strongly adhere to my views therein expressed as to the wickedness of the turf, I shall, for the reason I am about to mention, take no further active part in the controversy. I find that the Prime Minister is the owner of some racehorses (a fact previously unknown to me), and as I am his "dextera," if it is not presumptive to say so, it would clearly be unbecoming on my part to take up any antagonistic position. However much I may regret having to take this course, I am sure you will agree with me that it is the only one which is open to me.

Yours faithfully, W-ll-am V-rn-n H-rc-urt.

Dear Mr. Punch,—Last Sunday evening I fully intended going to church. I put on my most attractive bonnet, and an absolutely bewitching jacket, when I discovered that Jim (he's my husband, you know) did not intend to go out. As I had read a little while before the new archidiaconal theory of obedience, that of course prevented my going out. Clearly as I am Jim's "better-half" I couldn't go anywhere that he didn't go. Please, Mr. Punch, was I right? Or can it be that the archdeacon was wrong?

Yours very perplexed, Ethel Dinmere.