THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, on the Motion for the adjournment of the House I beg to ask my noble friend who leads it two questions of which I have given him private notice relating to the Petroleum Production Bill, which came up from another place and was read a first time in your Lordships' House to-day. This is a Bill of somewhat far-reaching importance, and it is unfortunate that it should have reached this House at so very late a date. In the first instance, therefore, I ask the noble Earl whether he is in a position to proceed with the Bill during the remainder of the present sittings before the adjournment, although such a short period of time is left. It will undoubtedly be a misfortune, for a reason which I can explain in a moment, if this measure does not become law before we adjourn, and I therefore put the question to the noble Earl whether, in spite of the time of the session at which we have arrived, it would be possible to proceed with the Bill.
In the second place, assuming that the noble Earl feels this to be impossible, I would put this point before him. This measure has passed in another place, and the main proposal of it is that no person should be allowed to bore for petroleum without a licence of His Majesty's Government, thus placing the control of the petroleum supplies in this country, if and as far as they do exist, in the hands of the Crown. It may; of course, be said that with the régime under which we now exist nobody can take any step of the kind 618 without a licence under the Defence of the Realm Act. But what is conceived by some of those who have witnessed the passage of the Bill in another place is that some persons might seek to anticipate its passing and defeat its object by entering into some formal contract to become operative after peace is declared, and after the Defence of the Realm Acts have ceased to operate.
I therefore, in the second place, desire to ask the noble Earl whether it will not be possible, if he is not able to proceed with the Bill before the adjournment, as I hope he may be to bear in mind the possibility of amending it at a later stage in a manner which would defeat any such anticipatory action on the part of interested persons who may desire to "jump a claim," as it is phrased, in the interval before your Lordships meet again. I hope that the noble Earl may be able to answer these questions.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, in reply to the first question, I am afraid that I should be regarded as abusing my very limited powers, and laying myself open to a charge to which we listened the other day of assuming an undue control over the proceedings of your Lordships' House, if I ventured to express any hint, at eight o'clock on Tuesday evening, of an intention to ask your Lordships to pass into law a Bill of a very important and a not uncontentious character in the interval that elapses between now and Thursday afternoon. While the noble Marquess was asking me this question I rather wondered whether he would have been able to put it with as much suavity as he did had Lord Salisbury been sitting at his side, because I imagine that I should hardly have been in a position to get up and reply without having indignant protests from my noble friend Lord Salisbury at the mere idea that I should contemplate such an outrage on your Lordships' House at this period of the session.
But putting that aside, I am afraid that Parliamentary difficulties, quite apart from the pledges that I have given, are too great. Your Lordships will know very well that the Bill, having only been read a first time to-day, not having yet been printed, not having, so far as I know, been seen by any member of your Lordships' House, could not possibly come on for Second Reading until to-morrow. In that case were a desire expressed even with the consent, of 619 many important members of your Lordships House, that it should be passed into law this session, it would be necessary to apply the suspension of Standing Order XXXIX to the whole of the remaining stages. But apart from that, I think that I am precluded by the undertaking that I have given to your Lordships' House, became at an earlier date I made clear, on more than one occasion, the Bills for which it was proposed to ask your Lordships' consideration before the adjournment. I think, therefore, that I should be doing wrong if I held out hopes of being able to proceed further with the Bill at this stage of the session. I very much regret that this should be the case. I know the importance of the measure, and the interest which is taken in it by my noble friend Lord Cowdray. I know, too, the patriotic objects with which he is animated in the matter, and the vital importance of providing the opportunities which this Bill will create I quite realise all that, and had the Bill only been fortunate enough to get through the House of Commons at a rather earlier stage, I would have made a special effort in order to provide facilities in this House. It is the lateness of the date and the pledges that I have publicly given here that preclude me from giving a more favourable answer to the noble Marquess than I have been able to do.
620 As regards his second question, it was, I think, directed to this. He asked the Government to consider whether by legislation, at, as it must be, a later date they would take steps to prevent any action inconsistent with the Bill being taken by individuals in the interim. That, I think, is the point put to me by the noble Marquess. It is a matter which, of course, the Government will—I cannot pledge myself about it now—most carefully consider, and I should hope that it may be borne in mind when, at the commencement of our next sittings in October, the Bill as no doubt it will, comes before your Lordships in the ordinary course.
§ [From Minutes of August 5.]