Mr. DILLON done to promote the prosecution of the War that he should
receive special consideration?

There was a renewed discussion of the censorship of pamphlets. Sir
GEORGE CAVE ably defended the regulations, but did not convince
everyone that his preference for confiscation over prosecution was
entirely sound. The idea that the publishers of these pamphlets would
welcome advertisement is probably erroneous, or why was it necessary
to insist that they should put their names to them?

Mr. SPENCER HUGHES'S humorous attack upon the CENSOR was much
applauded on the Liberal benches. Some of the more brilliant passages
would have received even wider appreciation if a good many Members had
not heard them a week before from the lips of Mr. AUGUSTINE BIRRELL at
a non-political luncheon.

_Thursday, December 13th_.--Lord BERESFORD charged the PRIME MINISTER
with having two voices, like _Caliban's_ monster. Lord CURZON
flatly declined to accept the suggestion that Cabinet Ministers
were collectively responsible for one another's speeches--"they had
far more serious things to think of." The phrase seems a little
depreciatory, but as Mr. LLOYD GEORGE, according to his candid
colleague, is "constitutionally an optimist" he will no doubt make
the best of it.

Mr. HOUSTON was informed that sweets "for military, naval or civil
consumption" were still being imported, but that the Ministry of
Shipping made no special provision for their carriage. No one,
therefore, need grudge Sir ERIC GEDDES the lozenge which he so
ostentatiously popped into his mouth just before making his speech