me" upon the
country.

This brought up the superman himself, Sir ERIC GEDDES, who in the most
vigorous speech he has yet delivered in the House defended the scheme
as being absolutely essential at the time it was initiated. It was
a war-time expedient, which changing circumstances had rendered
unnecessary; but if the War and the U-boat campaign had gone on it
might have been the salvation of the country. After all you can't
expect to have shipyards without making a few slips.

_Tuesday, May 20th._--The advance of woman continues. Very soon she
will have her foot upon the first rung of the judicial ladder, and be
able to write J.P. after her name, for the LORD CHANCELLOR, pointing
out that in this matter the Government were bound to honour the
pledges of the PRIME MINISTER, gracefully swallowed Lord BEAUCHAMP'S
Bill. He took occasion, however, to warn the prospective justicesses
(if that is the right term) that, as the Commissions of the Peace were
already fully manned, it might be some time before any large number
of ladies could be added to the roll of those who, in the words of the
Prayer-book, "indifferently administer justice."

[Illustration: THE LONG PULL.

MR. ROBERTS RESPONDS TO HIS COUNTRY'S CALL.]

Quite unintentionally, of course, Mr. BOTTOMLEY did the Government a
real service in the Commons. Every day since his return from Paris Mr.
BONAR LAW has been pestered with inquiries as to when, if ever, the
House was to be allowed to discuss the Peace terms, and has evaded
a direct answer with more or less ingenuity. This afternoon Mr.
BOTTOMLEY, after hearing that the LEADER OF THE HOUSE had "nothing to
add" to his previous replies, asked if he was right in supposing that,
when the Treaty came up for ratification, the House must take it or
leave it, and would have no power to amend it in any respect. Mr. LAW
joyfully jumped at the chance of ending the daily catechism once for
all. "That," he said, "exactly represents the position, and I do not
see in what other way any Treaty could ever be arranged."

In anticipation of the debate on the Finance Bill Mr. SYDNEY ARNOLD
sought an admission from the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER that the
income-tax on small incomes was hardly worth retaining, owing to the
cost of collection. Not at all, said Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It costs six
hundred thousand pounds and brings in eight million. Of course, he
added, it costs more proportionately to collect small amounts than
large. I