Tuesday, March 9th.—­Mr. SHORTT relieved our apprehensions by stating that the few spurious “Bradburys” in circulation are of home manufacture, and that, while a few specimens emanating from Russia had been sent here for identification, they were so poorly executed that they would scarcely pass muster in this country.  It is comforting to think that there is one British industry which has nothing to fear from foreign dumping, but is cheerfully forging ahead.

The HOME SECRETARY also denied that there had been any remarkable increase in pocket-picking or that schools existed for the training of young criminals.  As Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL pointed out, there is indeed no need for them so long as the cinemas provide their present facilities. Fagin has been quite knocked out by the film.

The Parliamentary vocabulary extends apace.  Mr. RENDALL, whose motion on divorce had been postponed under the new arrangements for business until after Easter, complained that Sir FREDERICK BANBURY had “done him down.”

Part of the evening was devoted to the bread-subsidy.  The debate incidentally illustrated the intellectual independence of Ministers.  A few days ago Mr. LLOYD GEORGE, in advocating the resumption of trade with Russia, declared that “the corn-bins of Russia were bulging with grain.”  To-night Mr. MCCURDY told the House that, according to his information, the resumption of trade With Russia was not likely to open up any large store of wheat or grain in the near future.  Possibly there is no real incongruity.  The grain may be there, but the Russians, greedy creatures, may be going to eat it themselves.

Wednesday, March 10th.—­Even in the gloomy atmosphere of the Upper Chamber the subject of divorce lends itself to humour.  Lord BUCKMASTER, who introduced a Bill founded on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, performed his task with due solemnity, but some of the noble Lords who opposed it were positively skittish.  Lord BRAYE, for example, thought that, if the Bill passed, Who’s Who would require a supplement entitled Who’s Who’s Wife; and Lord PHILLIMORE illustrated the effects of easy divorce by a story of a Swiss marriage in which the bride-elect was attended by four of the happy man’s previous spouses.  He also told another of an American judge who, having explained that in this department of his duties he was “very strict,” added, “Of course I make no difficulty the first time, but if they come again within twelve months I want a good reason.”

Mr. HOGGE led a vigorous attack on the Ministry of Transport, which he seemed to think had done very little for its money except to divert the omnibuses at Westminster and so make it more difficult for Members of Parliament to get to the House.  Mr. KENNEDY JONES, who was responsible for the innovation, rather hinted that in the case of some Members this might not be altogether an objection.  The brunt of the