Tuesday, March 11th.—­In moving the Second Reading of his Bill to enable women to become barristers and solicitors, Lord BUCKMASTER thought it necessary to assure the House that there was no danger of its flooding the Inns with prospective Bar-maids.  He might have spared his apologetics, for there was no opposition.  The LORD CHANCELLOR welcomed the Bill on behalf of the Government, and expressed the conviction that the Benchers, though not “avid of this change,” would nevertheless loyally co-operate if Parliament saw fit to adopt it.

Having caught the infection from the Commons the Peers then proceeded to discuss their own procedure.  From Lord CURZON we learned, somewhat to our surprise, that the House possesses certain Standing Orders.  At present it honours them chiefly in the breach, and in its Leader’s view it would do well to imitate the more orderly procedure of another place, even to the adoption of “starred questions” and the abandonment of the practice by which any noble Lord, by the simple process of addressing an inquiry to a Minister, can initiate a full-dress debate.  Lord CREWE’S pious hope that these suggestions would enable more noble Lords to take part in the debates was welcomed by Lord AMPTHILL, who remarked that, after nearly thirty years in that House, he had never before been made aware of this desire for backbench orations.

As originally introduced the Rent Restriction Bill was strictly limited in its operation.  But landlord-baiting is a sport to which the House of Commons is much addicted, and by the time the measure emerges from Committee its own draughtsman will hardly recognise it.

The best of the many Amendments complacently accepted, after a show of reluctance, by the Government spokesmen, was one providing that no increase of rent shall be chargeable except in the case of a house “reasonably fit for habitation.”  That should make some of our slum-owners sit up and take notice.

Wednesday, March 12th.—­An apparently innocent request from Lord SUDELEY for the reinstatement of the system of guide-lecturers in the Museums led to quite a lively debate.  Other noble lords used the motion as a peg for a fierce indictment of the Government’s treatment of these institutions during the War.  Lord CRAWFORD, who has probably forgotten more about Art than some of his critics ever knew, concealed his real sympathy for the motion under a mask of official obstructiveness, but was compelled eventually to give it a strictly provisional acceptance.

In the old days when the possession of a seat was secured by the deposit of a hat it was no uncommon thing, on the morning of a big debate, to see a Member staggering in under a load of toppers, with which he proceeded to secure seats for his friends.  To put an end to this nefarious practice the card-system was introduced; but that, it is said, has now been similarly abused.  One man one card, however, is in future to be the rule.  Colonel WILL THORNE feared that it might still be circumvented by the “stage army” trick; but the SPEAKER thought the attendants might be trusted to recognise and defeat any Member who essayed it.