He permitted himself, however, to impart one or two comforting items of information with regard to the arming of existing merchant-ships, the construction of new tonnage and the development of inventions for the discovery and deletion of submarines.  For excellent reasons, no doubt, it was all a little vague, but in one respect his statement left nothing to be desired in the way of precision.  “The present Government, in its seven weeks of office, had taken but two large and one small hotels,” and is, I gather, marvelling at its own moderation.

I was a little disappointed with the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address in the Commons, for of recent years there has been a great improvement in this difficult branch of oratory.  Sir HEDWORTH MEUX must, I think, have been dazzled by the effulgence of his epaulettes, which were certainly more highly polished than his periods.  When in mufti he is much briefer and brighter.  As Mr. ASQUITH however found both speeches “admirable,” no more need be said.

The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, as one must for convenience style him—­though in truth there is no Opposition, in the strict sense of the word—­just said what he ought to have said.  For one brief moment he seemed to be straying on to dangerous ground, when he put some questions regarding the scope of the coming Imperial Conference; but the rest of his speech was wholly in keeping with the peroration, in which he pleaded that in the prosecution of the Nation’s aim there should be “no jarring voices, no party cross-currents, no personal or sectional distractions.”

Unfortunately there is a section of the Commons over which he exercises no control.  When Mr. BONAR LAW, as Leader of the House, rose to reply, the “jarring voices” of Mr. SNOWDEN and others of his kidney were heard in chorus, calling for the PRIME MINISTER.  Mr. LAW paid no attention to the interruption.  He cordially thanked Mr. ASQUITH for his speech, “the best possible testimony to the unity of this country,” and assured him that the Imperial Conference would be primarily concerned with the successful prosecution of the War.  The GERMAN EMPEROR had proved himself a great Empire-builder, but it was not his own empire that he was building.

Later on Mr. PRINGLE reverted to the absence of the PRIME MINISTER, which he, as a person of taste, interpreted as “studied disrespect of the House of Commons.”  In this view he was supported by Mr. KING.  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE must really be careful.

Strange to say, no public notice was taken of another distinguished absentee—­the Member for East Herts.  A few days ago, after a violent collision with Mr. JUSTICE DARLING, MR. PEMBERTON-BILLING announced his intention of resigning his seat and submitting himself for re-election.  But since then we have been given to understand that a vote of confidence proposed by PEMBERTON, seconded by BILLING, and carried unanimously by the hyphen, had convinced him that, as in the leading case of Mr. CECIL RHODES, “resignation can wait.”