Monday, May 3rd.—The Prime Minister being confined to his bed and Mr. Bonar Law being engaged elsewhere in inaugurating the Housing campaign the House of Commons was in charge of the Home Secretary. Consequently Questions went through with unusual speed, for Mr. Shortt has a discouraging way with him. The most searching “Supplementary” rarely receives any recognition save a stony glare through his inseparable eye-glass, as who should say, “How can So-and-so be such an ass as to expect an answer to his silly question?”

People who consider that the Minister of Transport is too much of “a railway man” will, I fear, be confirmed in their belief. In his opinion the practice of the Companies in refusing a refund to the season ticket-holder who has left his ticket behind and has been compelled to pay his fare is “entirely justifiable.” He objected, however, to Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke’s interpretation of this answer as meaning that it was the policy of H.M. Government “to rob honest people,” so there may be hope for him yet.

It is wrong to suppose that the class generally known as “Young Egypt” is solely responsible for the anti-British agitation in the Protectorate. Among a long list of deportees mentioned by Lieut.-Colonel Malone, and subsequently referred to by Mr. Harmsworth as “the principal organisers and leaders of the disturbances” in that country, appeared the name of “Mahmoud Pasha Suliman, aged ninety-eight years.”

The process of cleaning-up after the War involves an Indemnity Bill. Sir Ernest Pollock admitted that there was “some complexity” in the measure, and did not entirely succeed in unravelling it in the course of a speech lasting an hour and a half. His chief argument was that, unless it passed, the country might be let in for an additional expenditure of seven or eight hundred millions in settling the claims of persons whose goods had been commandeered. An item of two million pounds for tinned salmon will give some notion of the interests involved and incidentally of the taste of the British Army.

Lawyers and laymen vied with one another in condemning the Bill. Mr. Rae, as one who had suffered much from requisitioners, complained that their motto appeared to be L’État c’est moi. Sir Gordon Hewart, in mitigation of the charge that there never had been such an Indemnity Bill, pointed out that there never had been such a War. The Second Reading was ultimately carried upon the Government’s undertaking to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, from which, if faithfully reflecting the opinion of the House, it is conjectured that the measure will return in such a shape that its own draftsman won’t know it.

Tuesday, May 4th.—The Matrimonial Causes Bill continues to drag its slow length along in the House of Lords. Its ecclesiastical opponents are gradually being driven from trench to trench, but are still full of fight. The Archbishop of Canterbury very nearly carried a new clause providing that it should not be lawful to celebrate in any church or chapel of the Church of England the marriage of a person, whether innocent or guilty, whose previous union had been dissolved under the provisions of the Bill. His most reverend brother of York spoke darkly of Disestablishment if the clause were lost, and eleven Bishops voted in its favour, but the Non-Contents defeated it by 51 to 50.

Captain Wedgwood Benn wanted to know whether swords still formed part of the uniform of Royal Air Force officers, and, if so, why. He himself, I gather, never found any use for one in the “Side Shows” which he has described so picturesquely. Mr. Churchill’s defence of its retention was more ingenious than convincing. Swords, he said, had always been regarded as the insignia of rank, and even Ministers wore them on occasions. But the fact that elderly statesmen occasionally add to the gaiety of the populace at public celebrations by tripping over their “toasting-forks” hardly seems a sufficient reason for burdening young officers with a totally needless expense.

The Postmaster-General is all for a quiet life. When the Dublin postal workers announced their intention of stopping work for two days in sympathy with a Sinn Fein strike, did he dismiss them? Not he. You can’t, as he said, dismiss a whole service. No, he simply gave them two days’ leave on full pay, a much simpler plan.

Thanks to the Irish Nationalists, who have announced their intention of taking no part in the discussion of the Government of Ireland Bill, Mr. Bonar Law was able to drop the scheme for closuring it by compartments. The new Irish doctrine of self-extermination has given much satisfaction in Ministerial circles. Mr. Churchill’s gratitude, I understand, will take the form of a portrait of Mr. Devlin as Sydney Carton under the shadow of the guillotine.

On the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Colonel Burn suggested that a new Department should be set up to deal with the harvest of the sea. Dr. Murray approved the idea, and thought that the Minister without Portfolio might give up loafing and take to fishing.

Wednesday, May 5th.—Apparently it is not always selfishness that makes Trade Unionists unwilling to admit ex-service men to their ranks, but sometimes solicitude for the welfare of these brave fellows. Take the manufacture of cricket-balls, for example. You might not think it a very arduous occupation, but Dr. Macnamara assured the House that it required “a high standard of physical fitness,” and that leather-stitching was as laborious as leather-hunting. It is true that some of the disabled men with characteristic intrepidity are willing to face the risk, but the Union concerned will not hear of it, and the Minister of Labour appears to agree with them.

Even on the Treasury Bench, however, doctors disagree. Dr. Addison seems distinctly less inclined than Dr. Macnamara to accept the claims of the Trade Unionists at their own valuation. The bricklayers have agreed to admit a few disabled men to their union—bricklaying apparently being a less strenuous occupation than leather-stitching—but exclude other ex-service men unless they have served their apprenticeship as well as their country. Upon this the Minister of Health bluntly observed that the idea that it takes years to train a man to lay a few bricks was in his opinion all nonsense.

Thursday, May 6th.—Possibly it was because to-day was originally assigned for the opening of the Committee stage of the Home Rule Bill that Members in both Houses drew special attention to the present state of lawlessness in Ireland. If their idea was to create a hostile “atmosphere” it did not succeed, for, owing to Mr. Long’s indisposition, the Bill was postponed. Besides, the fact that every day brings news of policemen murdered, barracks burned, tax-collectors assaulted and mail-bags stolen, while to one class of mind it may argue that the present is a most inopportune moment for a great constitutional change, may to another suggest that only such a change will give any hope of improvement.

It is, at any rate, something to know that Irishmen have not in trying circumstances entirely lost their saving grace of humour. Thus the writer of a letter to Lord Askwith, describing with much detail a raid for arms, in the course of which his house had been smashed up and he himself threatened with instant death, wound up by saying, “I thought I would jot down these particulars to amuse you.”

The Commons had a rather depressing speech from Mr. McCurdy. His policy had been gradually to remove all food-controls and leave prices to find their own proper (and, it was hoped, lower) level. But in most cases the result had been disastrous, and the Government had decided that control must continue. Sir F. Banbury complained of the conflict of jurisdiction between the Departments. It certainly does seem unfair that the Food-Controller should be blamed because the Board of Trade is “making mutton high.”