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.  If the whole of the income-tax could be paid by one individual the cost of collection would be nil.  One imagined the CHANCELLOR on the eve of the Budget wishing, a la NERO, that the whole of the British people had but one purse, into which he could dip as deeply and as often as he pleased.

The debate on the Finance Bill was largely devoted to the proposed “levy on capital,” which a section of the “Wee Frees,” who already display fissiparous tendencies, have borrowed from the Labourites.  After their amendment was framed, however, Mr. ASQUITH spoke at Newcastle, and ostentatiously refused to say a word about the new nostrum.  Sir DONALD MACLEAN, anxious to avoid displeasing either his old leader or his new supporters, contented himself with the suggestion that a Commission should be set up to consider the subject.

The CHANCELLOR had little difficulty in disposing of the amendment.  He might, indeed, have contented himself with quoting the War Bond advertisements, which daily inform us that the patriotic investor “will receive the whole of his money back with a substantial premium.”

The Preference proposals which Mr. ACLAND had described as bred “by Filial Piety out of the Board of Trade” received the unexpected aid of Sir ALFRED MOND, who disposed of his Cobdenite prejudices as easily as the conjurer swallows his gloves, and unblushingly asserted that the tiny Preference now proposed, far from being the advance-guard of Protection, was in reality a very strong movement towards Free Trade.  Comforted by this authoritative declaration Coalition Liberals helped the Government to defeat the amendment by 317 to 72.

Wednesday, May 21st.—­The Peers being as usual rather short of work at this period of the Session, the LORD CHANCELLOR introduced a Bill “to enable the Official Solicitor for the time being to exercise powers and duties conferred on the person holding the office of Official Solicitor.”