In moving a Vote of Credit for the unexampled sum of five hundred millions, Mr. BONAR LAW apologised for a slight error in his Budget statement. He had then estimated the expenditure of the country at five and a half millions a day. Owing to fortuitous circumstances, the amount for the first thirty-five days of the financial year had turned out to be seven and a half millions a day. Mr. MCKENNA, conscious of some similar lapses in calculation during his own time at the Exchequer, handsomely condoned the mistake. Still one felt that it strengthened the stentorian plea for economy made by Mr. J.A.R. MARRIOTT in a maiden speech that would perhaps have been better if it had not been quite so good. The House is accustomed to a little hesitation in its novices and does not like to be lectured even by an Oxford don. [Illustration: THE SECRET SESSION. _WINSTON._ "NO REPORT OF SPEECHES. IT HARDLY SEEMS WORTH WHILE."] The debate produced a number of speeches more suitable for the Secret Session that was to follow. Our enemies will surely be heartened when they read the criticisms passed by Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT, an ex-Minister of the Crown, upon our Naval policy, and by Mr. DILLON on the Salonika Expedition; and they will not understand that the one is dominated by the belief that no Board of Admiralty that does not include Lord FISHER can possibly be efficient; and that the other is congenitally unable to believe anything good of British administration in Ireland or elsewhere. For once Mr. BONAR LAW took the gloves off to Mr. DILLON, and told him plainly that more attention would be paid to his criticism if he was himself doing something to help in the prosecution of the War. _Thursday, May 10th_.--I gather from Mr. SPEAKER'S report of the Secret Session that nothing sensational was revealed. The PRIME MINISTER'S "encouraging account of the methods adopted to meet the submarine attack" was not much more explicit, I infer, than the speech which Lord CURZON was making simultaneously, _urbi et orbi_, in the House of Lords, or Mr. ASQUITH would not have observed--again I quote the official report--that "hardly anything had been said which could not have been said openly." That none of the Nationalists should have addressed the House was perhaps less due to their constitutional reticence than to the depressing effect of the South Longford election, where their nominee was defeated by the Sinn Fein candidate--one MCGUINNESS, and evidently a stout fellow. But it is odd to find that the debate was conducted without the assistance of Messrs. BILLING, PRINGLE and HOGGE. Their eloquent silence was a protest, no doubt, against the eviction of the reporters. Mr. CHURCHILL was probably suffering equal anguish, but with patriotic self-sacrifice he refused to deprive his fellow-legislators of the privilege of hearing once again his views on the conduct of War. * * * * *