reasonable, as the procedure proposed in the two cases was different, and it well might be that the House would accept the former but not the latter. The instruction, however, was negatived and, after a resolution had been passed applying the Kangaroo closure to the committee proceedings, the House settled down to a long and animated discussion of this novel and important Bill. The committee stage was concluded on the 2nd of May, and from the 8th to the 11th of May the report stage was taken. I was somewhat disturbed at the proposal to vest in the Speaker the sole responsibility of deciding in each case what was and what was not a Money Bill, and Mr. Asquith suggested that two Members of the House should be annually nominated to assist me in coming to a decision. This proposal was eventually adopted at the last stage, as an amendment to the Lords' amendments. I had felt that in the case of a Bill which raised serious party controversy, the duty cast upon the Speaker was somewhat invidious and his decision might bring upon him severe criticism from one or other party. The assistance of two specially selected Members seemed, however, to provide him with a safeguard, and to this I agreed. As events turned out, although I had frequently occasion to consult these gentlemen, no difficulty ever occurred in the matter, for the clause was so carefully and elaborately drafted that I never had much doubt as to the category in which the Bills, which I had to consider, fell. I need here only add that in my judgment the celebrated Finance Bill of 1909, which was the immediate cause of the Parliament Act, would not have come under the provisions of Clause 1, Section 2 of the Parliament Act, as a Money Bill," for it contained a number of provisions which were not within the definition of that clause 66 and section. The debates on the report stage passed off quietly and without any disturbing elements. Only one night was spent upon the third reading. Mr. Asquith on that occasion promised that the reform of the Upper Chamber would be undertaken during the current Session, but this reform is still unaccomplished. With the departure of the Parliament Bill to " another place" interest subsided and public attention was for a time directed to other quarters. The unveiling of the Queen Victoria Memorial in front of Buckingham Palace attracted a vast crowd and was a remarkable spectacle, not diminished by the presence of the Kaiser and Kaiserin, who came to London for the function. My wife and I were honoured by an invitation to attend it, as well as the banquet at Buckingham Palace that night and a ball there a day or two later. After the memorial was unveiled the police were instructed to give information to any enquirers about the several allegorical figures grouped around it. It happens that one of the figures at the foot of the pedestal on which the statue of the Queen is placed represents "Maternity," and is the representation of a buxom lady with several children at her knees and feet. An enquirer, on being informed of the meaning of the figure, replied, "Maternity? Then she ought to be ashamed of herself, for she has no wedding ring." Another ball which attracted a good deal of attention was a fancy dress dance, given by Mr. F. E. Smith and Lord Winterton, at Claridge's. This proved to be the first of a series of similar entertainments, which for a time became the vogue in London. I went to Claridge's in the dress of a Moorish grandee, which my brother, Colonel Cecil Lowther, had brought back with him from Morocco a year or two previously. One lady, well known in political circles, who had been married about a year before, appeared in the costume of a nun, which, however, was hardly suitable to the interesting condition in which she manifestly appeared to be. Lord Charles Beresford observed about her that, following ancient custom, she deserved to be walled up. The Times waxed somewhat indignant about this ball and denounced the "general light-heartedness which prevailed at a time when a grave constitutional crisis was impending. The imminent approach of the date of the Coronation was no doubt responsible for the cheerful disposition of the public, which manifested itself universally. During the Whitsun recess I went to Marienbad to go through a course of baths and waters for my old enemy the gout; but I had a wretched time, for the gout developed in both feet and I was a complete prisoner in my room for some days. At first my only acquaintance in the place was the late Mr. Hoult, M.P. for a Liverpool division, but towards the end of my visit Mr. Henry Chaplin arrived; we saw a good deal of each other and exchanged much talk on politics and sport. I got back to London in time to take part in many of the Coronation festivities. There was a luncheon party in Westminster Hall in honour of our Colonial guests, and I found myself between Sir Wilfred Laurier, the venerable and picturesque Canadian statesman, and Mr. Molteno, the Speaker of the South African Parliament, whose brother was at that time M.P. for a Scottish constituency. Unfortunately I had to leave before the speeches began, in order to take the chair of the House, which met as usual at 2.45 p.m. My wife and I were also amongst the 500 guests at the banquet at Buckingham Palace, two days before the Coronation ceremony. It was a very brilliant and admirably organized function, and came to an end in time to allow many of the guests to go to the Shakespeare costume ball at the Albert Hall. Mrs. Arthur James impersonated Queen Elizabeth, and was escorted by her Court to a throne, erected below the large organ, from which she watched the groups representing the characters in Shakespeare's plays which paraded in front of her before the dancing began. The whole scene was very pretty and interesting. Coronation Day was the 22nd of June. Robed in my wig and gold gown, I proceeded at 9.30 a.m. to the Abbey in the Speaker's state coach. This is a huge and ponderous vehicle dating from about 1700, said to have been designed by Daniel Marot, a Dutchman who worked in Paris. In the collection of state coaches at Lisbon there is one almost identical in general style and ornamentation, which was the property of a Princess de Rohan Soubise, whom Daniel Marot in his diary mentions as one of his clients. This seems to determine the question of who was the builder as well as the date of the coach. But how it came to belong to a Speaker is another matter, still shrouded in mystery. It was probably given or lent by King William or Queen Anne to the Speaker of the time, possibly to Sir Arthur Onslow, and since his time has remained in the Speaker's stables or in the Palace of Westminster for his use. Sir Hugh Lane, who examined the paintings on the panels, attributed them to Cipriani, or to a pupil of his (he was the painter of the Royal Coach circa 1750); but they are difficult to distinguish and have been much spoilt by having had the backgrounds at some |