Lords Sitting of 22 October 1918

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and, to be printed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble Earl the Leader of the House say whether any plan has been made as to the subsequent stages of this Bill? My reason for asking is that, while I do not anticipate any difficulty about the Second Reading, there were a good many Amendments made in the later stages in another place, and I think it would be convenient if we could have time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage here to communicate Amendments to Scotland in order that they may be considered fairly and properly in the Committee of this House. If a few days could elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage it would be for the convenience of your Lordships.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to t he question of my noble friend, I think of putting down the Second Reading of the Bill on Wednesday of next week, and then I will endeavour to arrange for an interval of a few days between the Second Reading and Committee stage, for the reasons which the noble Lord has pleaded.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: And take the Committee stage the week after?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will endeavour to meet the view of the noble Lord, but I should not like to give a definite pledge at the moment without a clear idea of what our plans will have to be.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MIDWIVES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is a very short and a very simple Bill, and one which is exceedingly limited in its scope. I cannot help thinking that there may be, and indeed that there must be, in the minds of some of your Lordships a certain amount of misconception as to what the intentions of the Government really are in this matter and as to what the effect of this Bill is. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, a previous Bill dealing, with this subject was introduced in another place some six months ago or thereabouts. That Bill differed from this one in that it raised several acutely controversial questions, and the Government were of the opinion that it would not be right or proper at this moment, in the crisis of this world-wide war, to press what evidently was a controversial measure. Therefore, that Bill was withdrawn, and it has been superseded by this one, from which I think your Lordships will agree all these controversial points are absent.
In one respect I am quite sure that we are all agreed, and that is that if it should be proved that petroleum does exist in this country it is absolutely necessary that it should be properly protected and not allowed to be wasted. That, my Lords, is the only thing which this Bill sets out to do. It is true that the question of petroleum in this country is a novel one, and one as yet entirely unproved. At the same time we have the experience of other oil-producing countries to guide us in this matter, and I think your Lordships will agree that it would be a national calamity if indiscriminate and wasteful borings were to be allowed when the war is over. In some parts of America it has been calculated that as much as front 25 to 85 per cent. of the oil has been wasted in the ground, and that, owing to indiscriminate and wasteful methods of boring, the extraordinary supplies of that country are in great danger of being exhausted in the comparatively short period of about thirty years.
The sole aim and object of this Bill is to protect the petroleum in this country from a similar fate; granted, of course, that any petroleum exists here. That is

735
done by prohibiting, when the war is over and when the Defence of the Realm Regulations have lapsed, all boring or searching for petroleum except with the authority of the Government. Beyond that this Bill does not profess to go, and I would point out that it leaves absolutely unprejudiced all controversial questions—such as, for instance, who has any right in petroleum if it should be found. It does not prejudge one way or the other the rights or claims of the owners of the surface. All these questions will have to be decided by Parliament when the war is over; and the reason that. I say that all these questions will have to be decided then is this. If your Lordships will look at Clause 2, subsection (1), you will notice that the Bill is so drawn, and deliberately so drawn, that further legislation will be necessary before the industry, if petroleum is found in the interval, can be carried on.
It is true that in Clause 1 the Bill makes it impossible for any individual to bore on his own account, but it equally will be impossible for the Government to do so when their present war powers lapse, for the Bill confers no power on the Government to enter upon any one's land for the purpose of boring. Therefore a deadlock is created, and the Government of the day will be forced then to come to Parliament, and that is the time when all these very difficult and controversial points will have to be settled—questions such as who has any rights in the petroleum if it is there, and on what basis it is to be worked. All these questions of the rights or claims of landowners are in no way prejudiced by this Bill. They are neither denied nor are they admitted, but they are left to be decided by Parliament when hostilities are over and when our thoughts can once more be diverted from the all-aborbing topic of the war.
I might, perhaps, in case there is any misunderstanding on the point, briefly sum up what the position as regards oil in this country is at the moment. The position is that as long as the war lasts the Government, as your Lordships are aware, are proceeding under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; and neither the Bill which I am bringing forward to-day, nor the Bill which the noble Duke is bringing in, can affect the situation as long as those Regulations hold good. During the time that the Government is working under the Defence of the Realm Regulations,
736
compensation is provided for under those Regulations. It is open to the landowner to appeal for whatever compensation he thinks is due to him, to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. That is already provided for.
But, my Lords, when the war is over and the Defence of the Realm Regulations are no longer operative, there would, in the absence of any legislation such as I am proposing, be a scramble of speculators, and great waste in the oil, if it exists. Equally, when the Defence of the Realm Regulations lapse, the Government have no further power to enter on any land for the purpose of boring, for this Act will be the Act that deals with the subject. But at that moment, as you see by Clause 2, subsection (1), of this Bill, nobody can bore, and the right is not given to the Government to go on anybody's land for that purpose. That is the deadlock to which I referred, and that is why, if the oil industry has in the interval been proved, it will be absolutely necessary for the Government to come to Parliament to have all these points of controversy settled.
I hope, my Lords, that I have been able to dispel some of the fears of opponents of this measure, and that I have shown that the claims and rights of landowners are in no way prejudiced by this Bill; they are left exactly as they were. By reading the Bill a second time to-day, all that your Lordships do is to signify your agreement that if there should be oil in this country it must be properly protected against indiscriminate boring. And I hope, my Lords, I have shown that it will be necessary, before the industry can be carried on, that the Government of the day shall come to Parliament to settle on what lines it is to be carried on.
Before formally moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it would probably be for the convenience of this House, and would possibly save time and also a certain amount of duplication of debate, if I were to refer for a few moments to the Bill which is being brought in by the noble Duke and to the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name. On one point—it is a very important point—I am glad to see that we are agreed, and that is as to the necessity of protecting petroleum from indiscriminate boring. I might almost have hoped, as the noble Duke feels that as strongly as we do, to

737
have found him an ardent supporter of the Bill of which I am in charge, because this really is all that the Bill sets out to do—to protect the oil. But when we home to the Bill introduced by the noble Duke, what do we find? We find later on all those controversial points, or the principal ones, raised in his Bill which it is the aim and the object of the Government to avoid raising now during the war, leaving them, as I have said, to be settled by Parliament when the war is over.
Take, for example, Clause 5 of the noble Duke's Bill. That introduces what is, I think, the most controversial question of all—the question of royalties. It is true that in the Bill they are not called royalties; they are clothed in different language; but the fact remains that they are royalties. And, my Lords, the royalty is not, as was suggested in the previous Bill, a certain fixed sum, but, as far as I can make out, is to vary according to the success of individual landlords in driving a bargain with the licensee. I would ask the noble Duke whether he really seriously thinks for a moment that there would be the slightest chance of the House of Commons accepting his Bill with that clause in it when one considers the fate of the Bill six months ago which proposed a certain definite small royalty; here you have an indefinite, possibly a large, one.
My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the noble Duke's Bill at any length, although I think it might, on reflection, be found that Clause 6, for instance, might work to the detriment of certain landlords under his proposal as to the division of the proceeds, whatever they may be, amongst the landlords in a certain specified area, not according to the oil which has been extracted from below their land, but according to the surface acreage which they possess in that area. I do not wish, however, to go into those questions, because, as I have already said, the Government base their objections to his Bill on the grounds that I have already stated—that in their opinion this is not the moment to attempt to pass a very controversial measure. The Government, my Lords, prefer to leave these questions unprejudiced either way, to be solved by Parliament after the war.
I recollect on more than one occasion in this House hearing the accusation made against His Majesty's Government having brought in controversial measures
738
during the war. In my opinion, this is really what the noble Duke and his friends are now doing, and I would most respectfully suggest to him that the moment for bringing forward his suggestions as to the methods in which oil should be worked in this country is not now, but when the war powers under which the Government are at present acting lapse, and when the Government are forced, as forced they will be, to come back to Parliament under their own Bill to settle all these difficult and controversial points. For these reasons, my Lords, the Government are unable to accede to the noble Duke's Motion that both Bills be read a second time and then committeed to a Select Committee. And I very much hope that I have been, successful in showing that the Bill is not what, I think, some of the opponents, thought it was, and that it merely protects the oil from indiscriminate boring, leaving all questions as to the ownership to, be settled later. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Lord has made it perfectly clear what the object of the Bill is, and, if I might say so at once, I think he has acted wisely. The Bill proposes to separate two things altogether from each other. The one is inquiry as to what petroleum is available, and its preservation from destruction in the meantime. The second is a stage which is not attempted in his Bill—the stage defining the rights, personal or otherwise, for getting it. The Bill of the noble Duke goes further. For myself, I think there is a great deal in what has fallen from the noble Lord about the impossibility of getting a more controversial debate on at this stage, and there fore it is wise to proceed with the limited Bill which the noble Lord has explained, and to which I shall confine my observations.
The purpose of the Government is to find out what petroleum there is available, and to protect it. That is all. Clause 2, in the middle proviso, makes it clear that the Bill interferes with no existing right. It does not exhaust anybody's title. That is left for subsequent legislation. But there is a point to which I take some exception. The noble Lord's Bill provides for obtaining knowledge of what petroleum is there. And what powers does it give? It empowers any officer of the Ministry of

739
Munitions to exercise the same rights for the production and examination of plans and sections kept at a mine in pursuance of section 20 of the Coal Mines Act and section 19 of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, as are by those Acts conferred on inspectors. Now, my Lords, that is wholly inadequate for the purposes of the Bill. The question of what petroleum is underground is a very complicated one. I speak as one having sat for two years as Chairman of the Coal Conservation Committee. All these matters came under our review, and it became clear to us that what is needed above everything else is more knowledge. There is a Department which is charged with this business, and for some reason—I suppose because the Bill was drawn up by the Ministry of Munitions who did not give much attention to it—they are wholly excluded from the Bill. I am not sure at this moment what the position of the Geological Survey is, but I hope that it will presently come under the noble Earl who leads the House, and who is President of the Council and President of the Department of Scientific Research which has recently been established. Anyhow, it is there to obtain all the information that can be got regarding such questions as the strata which contain the hydro-carbons of the petroleum as well as of other oils. The noble Duke in this respect has, much better than the Government, provided for an Advisory Committee nominated by the Director of the Geological Survey to inquire into all these things and obtain the necessary knowledge.
But here is a Bill which is introduced for the purpose not only of the production of the petroleum that is under the ground, but for finding out where that petroleum lies, and yet it sets up no machinery which is even approaching adequacy for the purpose. All that the Ministry of Munitions officers will be able to do is to exercise the powers of the inspectors of mines to call for plans. That is not enough. The full research power which is under the noble Earl should be called into counsel, and the Director of the Geological Survey should be the person to give the advice and information which is needed. It would be very easy in Committee for the Government to introduce a clause to that effect. A few words would Do, carrying out the spirit of the noble Duke's Bill. That would make the Government's Bill worth a great deal mote than it is at present. So far as getting knowledge is concerned,
740
I hope to see that change made, and will introduce an Amendment myself if the Government prefer it, though I think it would be very much better that the Government should do it themselves. I think, however, that the Bill is a very good one as a sort of step in the desired direction, if it is amended in this respect.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I think that your Lordships will all agree that the main purpose of any measure such as that the Second Reading of which the noble Lord has moved to-day should be to ensure the production of a maximum amount of petroleum in the shortest possible time, and it should safeguard as far as possible the interests of all those concerned in petroleum production, and, most important of all, should ensure that Government control, in so far as it is necessary, should be exercised in as fair and as impartial and disinterested manner as possible. I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2 of the noble Lord's Bill. Clause 2 confers absolute power upon the Minister of Munitions to grant or to withdraw licences as he may please to anybody. Furthermore, it empowers him to impose any terms or conditions upon licensees—that is to say, the Minister of Munitions may favour one person and may reject another, or he may impose such terms upon one man that it will not pay him to bore for petroleum. It seems to me worth while inquiring whether it is desirable that the Minister of Munitions should be granted these powers. These powers, in fact, perpetuate the present conditions under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I think it can be shown that the powers which have under that Act been granted to the Ministry of Munitions have been used in a way to retard and to hamper instead of hastening the production of petroleum; that they have not safeguarded the interests of those concerned in its production, and that they have been used in a manner which is the very reverse of impartial. If that can be shown, I think that your Lordships will agree that a very strong case has been made out for at any rate not allowing this Government Bill to pass in its present form.
In order that these charges may be substantiated, I will draw your Lordships' attention to the Government's record in this matter. The Government made a declaration as long ago as June, 1917, that

741
drilling for oil in this country was an urgent necessity. Nothing was, however, done after that declaration until October of that year, when a Bill was introduced and failed to pass the House of Commons. Another three months elapsed, until January of the present year when this Defence of the Realm Act Regulation was issued empowering the Government, practically in the same words as in Clause 2 of this Bill, to enter on and to acquire land for the purpose of boring for petroleum and to grant licences to anybody they pleased. One would naturally have supposed that after the issue of that Regulation the Government would have lost no time in setting to work; but strange to relate, it was not until a few days ago that the first well was drilled on the Duke of Devonshire's property—that is to say, the first well was drilled nine months after this Defence of the Realm Act Regulation was issued, and sixteen months after the Government had declared that oil production was an urgent necessity.
This very strange delay in the production of petroleum has aroused a considerable amount of public interest in the Press, and various insinuations have been made against the good faith of the Government, which I venture to think, failing a satisfactory explanation, must rather tend to have the effect of undermining public confidence in the Government to a serious degree. In order that I may make what I am going to say quite clear, I must refer still further to the past history. About three and a half years ago certain landowners were in negotiation with Messrs. Pearson for boring petroleum on their estates. Those negotiations lasted a considerable time, and eventually fell through because Messrs. Pearson wished for an option of such an extended character that it practically amounted to a monopoly. These negotiations having fallen through, Messrs. Pearson entered into negotiations with the Government, and it is a remarkable fact that from the moment that Messrs. Pearson entered upon negotiations with the Government a course of consistent and apparently—I only say apparently—but on the face of it deliberate, obstruction has been adopted by the Government to all those persons trying to bore for petroleum in this country.
In order to explain what was the state of affairs produced by this obstruction I should like to read to your Lordships an
742
extract from a letter written to the Daily Chronicle by Mr. Cunningham Craig. Mr. Cunningham Craig was an expert employed by the Research Department of the Ministry of Munitions on this subject of petroleum production, and this is what he writes—
"Unfortunately the Production Department was put into the hands of officials with a very meagre knowledge of the subject, and to that alone the whole mess and muddle is due. Possibly resenting the necessary control by research, possibly from mere ignorance, the Production Department threw itself into the hands of certain interests, which, rightly or wrongly, believed that the development of a British oil industry would affect them adversely. Representatives of some of these interests co-operated with, or were actually employed by, the Controller of Production, and instead of carrying out the recommendations forwarded to them the officials attempted research work themselves and Commenced a course of criticism and obstruction which has lasted almost up to the present. Colliery owners and others who were anxious to produce oil by distillation and were willing to risk their own money for that end, were discouraged or even deliberately prevented from getting to work."
He goes on to say—
"This state of affairs caused great dissatisfaction in many quarters, while precious time was slipping away, and the dissatisfaction was not inarticulate. But something like a conspiracy of silence seems to have been deliberately engineered, possibly to save the reputation of certain incompetent officials, possibly in the interests of established industries that objected to the development of an oil industry not within their control"
He proceeds to speak of the very irrelevant answers given to Questions in another place on this subject. This obstruction has continued up to the present time. Latterly the excuse given was that intended legislation rendered it undesirable to grant any more licences that had already been granted under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation. But although this has been done in the case of nearly every firm, a remarkable exception has been made in the case of Messrs. Pearson, to whom a very strange and almost excessive partiality has been shown. This firm styles itself "Agents to the Ministry of Munitions." It asserts that it has t n agreement which consists, so we are told, in Messrs. Pearson providing all the machinery and staff for the work of prospecting for petroleum in this country, the Government, of Course, bearing all this expense but Messrs. Pearson deriving no profit whatever.
The first question, I think, which must occur is, Why was this particular firm selected for this purpose? More than a

743
year ago there was another firm, the Darcy Company, which is a branch of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which possessed all the machinery and staff and the capital to get to work at once on boring for petroleum. It possessed all that plant and machinery at a time when Messrs. Pearson had not a single scrap of machinery in this country—they had to bring it all from America. The efforts of the Darcy Company have been steadily obstructed, partly by uncertainty, which appears to have been deliberately engendered as to what legislation was going to be introduced, and at the present moment two licences for which they have applied have been held up in the Ministry of Munitions, and every effort which they have made to get to work and to obtain licences has been obstructed in every possible way. The treatment of this company has been very curious. They lately came to an arrangement with another company which owned certain lands for boring on the latter's property. They were suddenly informed that this agreement had been made and that they must give way to Messrs. Pearson, and this in spite of the fact that their proposal to drill was passed by the advisers of the Government on March 19 last. And the sole reason why they have not been producing petroleum for nearly a year past is that the Government deliberately delayed the granting of their priority for material. It is worthy of remark also that in taking this action Messrs. Pearson appear to have used information which they could only have obtained from Government sources. I should like to ask the Government whether it is true that the Darcy Company has recently been informed that no licences can be granted except on such terms as would not be likely to be satisfactory to any company or persons desiring to bore for oil.
I think you will agree that the only possible inference which the public can draw from all these circumstances is that the Government are applying Government funds and Government plant in order to create a monopoly for the benefit of a private firm, and that in order to carry out this policy they have deliberately delayed and discouraged the production of material which is urgently required for war purposes. And in order to establish this monopoly they have not hesitated to adopt a course which is designed to squeeze out other firms. It is also, I venture to think, a very remarkable coincidence that
744
the Bill is now only to become law at a period when Messrs. Pearson have been given time and opportunity to transfer sufficient machinery from America in order to get to work.
It may or may not be a good thing to grant a monopoly; that may or may not be the Government's policy, but at any rate it is directly contrary to the Government's engagement. An undertaking was given by Sir L. Worthington Evans on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place that no monopoly would be granted to any one firm. It is also contrary to the policy announced by Sir Arthur Churchman, who is Controller of the Mineral Oil Production Department of the Ministry of Munitions. He has stated that it was desirable that those wishing to bore for oil in the United Kingdom should first arrange with landowners and then apply to the Ministry of Munitions for licences, which licences would, subject to the Ministry being satisfied with the geological evidence, thereafter be issued to such persons.
To come back to Messrs. Pearson, it is, I think, not wholly irrelevant that Messrs. Pearson who are now willing to work for nothing, were not always willing to derive no benefit whatever from the work they undertook in boring for petroleum. Their ascent to these sublime heights of altruism was a somewhat gradual one. Some two years ago, when this firm was in negotiation with these landowners, they were willing to give a royalty of no less than 2s. per ton of petroleum produced, and it is sufficiently remarkable—I may say incidentally that this shows that they thought they could reap a very substantial benefit from this work—it is somewhat remarkable now that they should be willing to forgo all profit whatever.
This Bill might have been tolerated as a war measure, and the noble Lord has tried to represent to us that it is in fact a war measure; but the whole raison d'etre of this Bill is that it ensures the position of a prospector who wishes to bore for petroleum at the present time. Without legislation he was solely dependent upon the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation. It would not be worth his while to sink the capital and undertake the work because of the uncertainty as to future conditions. Therefore, if there is any object whatever in this Bill, it is to perpetuate the conditions under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation. And the Minister who was

745
in charge of this Bill in the other House distinctly stated that it would be necessary to introduce further legislation in order that the Defence of the Realm Act should be perpetuated. I think that, in view of these circumstances, in view of the extraordinary and very exceptional powers which are conferred upon the Ministry of Munitions and the way in which they have used them, we are entitled to ask for considerably more information that the noble Lord has vouchsafed to us. I should like to ask him, with regard to this agreement which has been entered into with Messrs. Pearsons, whether he is prepared to lay a copy of this agreement on the Table of the House.
Now, the noble Lord has said that all controversial questions are excluded from this Bill. In a sense that is true. They are so carefully excluded that, as a matter of fact, it has exactly the opposite effect of what he supposes, in that, so far from safeguarding the position of the landowner, it does exactly the reverse. The question of ownership and of compensation is completely omitted, and, as the noble Lord has told us, the only redress the landowner has is to come before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. Judging by the rulings which that Commission has given in the past they will allow compensation only on substantial loss, therefore the only compensation the landowner will get will be for the use and destruction of such land as may have been used for the purpose of boring for petroleum. I think it is almost certain that this Commission would not grant any compensation for loss of immunity, and, I believe, would not grant any claim which the landowner might put in as owner of the petroleum which is being produced.
I do not wish to enter into the vexed question of royalties, although I cannot admit the noble Lord's contention that in the Bill which I have had the honour to introduce any controversial question is raised. But with regard to this question of royalties, I should like to point out that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"; and at the present moment on certain Government land a prospector is boring for petroleum, and he not only has to pay a surface rent to the Government but a royalty to the Government as well. I think that if the Government as landowner is entitled to a royalty the private individual as landowner
746
is equally entitled to one; and if the noble Lord wishes all these contentious questions to be deferred until after the war, he might examine that particular agreement and see that this royalty which is now being granted to the Government is also deferred until the war is over. However great popular prejudice may be against the system of royalties, I think that the public are not likely to view with satisfaction an attempt by the Government to obtain something which does not belong to them without paying for it, in order that they may establish a monopoly for the benefit of a private firm. I am of opinion that the defects of this Government measure are so many and so glaring that this House would be failing in its duty if it allowed the Bill to pass in its present form; and it was with a view of meeting this situation that I have had the honour of introducing this second Bill. At the same time I do not suppose that it will be the wish of this House to reject or to obstruct any measure which can be represented as satisfying a national necessity in a time of emergency like the present. I shall therefore move that this No. 2 Bill be read a second time, and that both Bills be referred to a Select Committee.
I do not propose to enter into any details with regard to the No. 2 Bill, but I will refer to one or two points only. The first is the provision in Clause 2 which defines petroleum prospecting areas by an Advisory Committee appinted by the Director of the Geological Survey, who for this purpose takes the place of the Minister of Munitions. The second point is subsection (1) of Clause 3, in which the Ministry of Munitions would be compelled to grant a licence to search or bore for and to get petroleum. This ensures equitable treatment for all persons who wish to work petroleum, and avoids the grave objections in the Government Bill. My third point is with regard to Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 provides for payment for all petroleum obtained by a licensee to those persons who prove themselves legally entitled to it. The noble Lord says that this appears to give every opportunity to a landowner to drive as hard a bargain as he may please. I do not quite understand where he sees that. I do not see that this clause can in any way be given that interpretation. Nor do I see that it is in any way controversial. It is perfectly obvious that the question of the ownership of the petroleum must be

747
settled sooner or later. The effect of the Government Bill is to vest the petroleum in the Crown; it is an attempt to establish the right of the Crown to the petroleum, because under the Defence of the Realm Regulation no claim made by the landowner as owner of the petroleum would be allowed; and all that Clause 5 says is that the Crown shall prove its claim in the only proper tribunal—the Law Courts. I think that this clause fulfils the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the public and of all concerned in the production of petroleum, and would place that production on a firm and unequivocal foundation instead of on the slippery and insecure foundation which is provided in the Government Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Can the Government say whether they will deal with the point of getting information with regard to the question I raised—I mean through the Research Department of the Geological Survey?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, which of course carries great authority, will be very carefully examined. I happen to be the head of the Department to which it is proposed that the Geological Survey shall be transferred, but this question has not yet come to my notice. However, I can safely promise that it will be considered, and before we come to the Committee stage information will be given upon the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it may, perhaps, cause some little surprise to the House that the definite request made by the noble Duke for some further information from the Front Bench opposite, in view of the very explicit charges which he made against the conduct of this business by His Majesty's Government, was not immediately replied to by somebody from the Government Bench; but as nobody has risen I will say only one or two words on the general question.
In the first place, perhaps I may be allowed to express my sense of the addition which is made to the forces of your Lordships' House in the presence of the noble Duke above the gangway. He stated his case with much vigour and force, and I am quite certain that the close attention which was always paid in this House to the utterances of his noble father, whose presence here we all remember and whose speeches were so greatly regarded by us,
748
will be repeated in the case of the noble Duke. I am not in a position to express any opinion on the merits of the particular charge which the noble Duke has brought against the Ministry of Munitions. That charge consists in fact in a statement that an undue preference—if that is the phrase—has been given to the firm of Messrs. Pearson and Company in respect of the powers for boring for petroleum and presumably for getting petroleum if and when it is found. As to that, not knowing the circumstances, I can express no opinion. I do know that the firm of Messrs. Pearson and Company—which is, as we all know, represented in this House by Lord Cowdray—is one of the highest repute, not merely in this country but all over the world, and I should certainly be slow to believe any charge which was made against them as a firm, although I think I am right in saying that the noble Duke does not make any charge against the firm but rather against His Majesty's Government, and especially the Department of Munitions, for undue indulgence, if that be the word, given to the interests of the firm.
There was one point made by the noble Duke, however, upon which I should like to say a word. He complained that this Bill was introduced only at a period after Messrs. Pearson and Company had actually begun to initiate their first boring, instead of at an earlier date, before they were in a position to do anything. On that I think it is only fair to state that before the adjournment in the summer, as the noble Earl who leads the House will remember, some pressure was put upon him to proceed with the Bill in the last day or two of the session; and there is no harm in my saying now that it was at the special request of Lord Cowdray that I made that demand, if it was a demand, of the noble Earl opposite, to which he was unable to accede. Therefore it is not fair to conclude that the postponing of the Bill was in any way effected in the interests of the firm.
There is one other point in the noble Duke's speech upon which I wish to make what I think may be a correction. He quoted a statement made by a well-known engineer, Mr. Cunningham Craig, on the subject, again, of the undue preference given to certain parties for the possible production of oil. Unless I am greatly mistaken, that statement of Mr. Cunningham Craig had no reference whatever to

749
this matter of boring for petroleum oil. It had, I think, reference solely to the somewhat animated controversy which existed between the Petroleum Production Department and the Petroleum Research Department, in respect of which a Committee was appointed, over which I had the honour to preside, and which reported with reference to the distillation of Cannel coal and other kindred products for the purpose of obtaining fuel oil for the Navy and other purposes. I do not think that the paragraph which the noble Duke read had in fact the smallest bearing upon the matter with which we for the moment are concerned.
It is difficult, without hearing some further statement from the Government, to express any opinion on the course which your Lordships ought to take. In my opinion it cannot be disputed that the vexed question of royalties—which, as we know, in the case of liquid petroleum do stand and are bound to stand upon a somewhat different footing from the royalties paid for ironstone or other stone and coal, and possess, perhaps, a somewhat closer analogy to the difficult case of the ownership of salt under particular land—is somewhat prejudged in the Bill of the noble Duke, and I agree with the noble Lord opposite that for your Lordships to attempt now to express an opinion upon that exceedingly difficult point would be in the highest degree undesirable. It should not, I think, be held, as I think the noble Duke is disposed to hold, that the silence of your Lordships' House on this matter ought to be taken in a contrary sense to prejudge the matter in the other direction. That, I think, would be an unfair inference from any action your. Lordships may take in declining to consider that particular part, at all events, of the noble Duke's Bill.
I confess that as at present advised there does not appear to me to be much material for an examination by a Select Committee of the two Bills. If noble Lords opposite are able to enforce the view that their Bill is purely and simply a suspensory Bill and does not prejudice one way or the other future action or the tights of anybody—if, in fact, they are able to combat the argument of the noble Duke that what is called suspension is in reality the granting of a permanent monopoly to Messrs. Pearson—then I think the House would be wise to allow the Government Bill to be read a
750
second time without any question of its going to a Select Committee; but I confess that I await some further explanation on the part of the Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the noble Marquess expressed surprise that no answer was made by one of my noble friends. I assure him that no discourtesy was meant to your Lordships. The fact was that there is another Bill on the same subject on the Paper which, if read, a second time, is to be followed by further debate on procedure; and I confess that I rather thought the noble Duke, or another of your Lordships, would be talking on the second Bill, and that therefore no immediate answer was necessary. I must, however, say that although I listened with the greatest attention to the interesting speech delivered by the noble Duke opposite, I confess I was rather surprised at the form and substance of his speech. It consisted in very grave charges against the Ministry of Munitions, and, I think, against the firm of Messrs. Pearson. Lord Crewe indicated that no charge was brought against that firm—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understood so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot help feeling that if the charges brought, against the try of Munitions are correct they could scarcely stand without collusion on the part of Messrs. Pearson, and so far as the agreement between the Ministry of Munitions and this firm is concerned it is freely at the disposal of your Lordships and of the public. If necessary it could he printed in our Papers, though I imagine the more convenient course would probably be to lay certain copies of the document on the Table. There is nothing in the agreement that could not be made public.
The charges brought against the Ministry of Munitions are serious too—that excessive partiality has been shown towards this firm of Messrs. Pearson; that the Government have deliberately introduced delays in order to injure Messrs. Darcy; that the Government have created a monopoly for a private firm; that they have deliberately delayed the production of war material; that the course has been designed to squeeze out other firms, and that they took it at a moment when Messrs. Pearson

751
were ready to act. I do not know anything about the case. All I know is that Messrs. Pearson have foregone financial advantages which they might have gained, and have voluntarily placed at the disposal of the Government, without any remuneration, the services of their highly-trained staff and of their plant, as well as the experience gained by the firm in many years of research. I cannot help feeling that it would have been more convenient, and more in consonance with our ordinary methods, if notice had been given to the Ministry of Munitions on these points, and no doubt then a considered reply could have been submitted.
If I may I should like just to refer to the later stage of our conversation to-day. The noble Duke has a variant Bill on the Table, and also, I think, a Motion to refer both Bills to a Select Committee. Of course, that means delay. This Bill was introduced into Parliament many months ago and it has been in your Lordships' hands for two or three months at least, while the new Bill of the Duke of Northumberland has been in our hands for forty-eight hours. The noble Duke has blamed the Government for being slow in the matter. I cannot help thinking that his Proposal is going to introduce a fresh series of delays, and if, as I think is generally conceded, the matter is one of some urgency, I would suggest that the Committee stage should be taken by your Lordships in Committee of the whole House rather than that the Bill should go to a Select Committee.
The Duke of Northumberland did not criticise the Government Bill for what it contains. He has introduced an amendment to which the noble and learned Viscount opposite referred. From what the Leader of the House has said, apparently that is a point to which sympathetic attention will be given. What the Duke of Northumberland criticised is what was omitted from the Government Bill. Any point raised in his alternative measure can perfectly well, under our Rules of Order, be introduced during the Committee stage of the Government Bill, should the House think such a course necessary. I do not, therefore, see the necessity of a second Bill, still less of referring both Bills to a Select Committee.
I would, in conclusion, refer to one further aspect of the matter. My noble friend Lord Elphinstone has made it
752
perfectly clear that the matter in the Duke of Northumberland's Bill, which is not referred to in the Government Bill, must at, a later stage be dealt with by legislation. The whole essence of the Government Bill is to exclude these highly technical and indeed very contentious points which the Duke of Northumberland has incorporated in his Bill. The fact of passing the Government Bill as it stands neither prejudges nor impairs any of the rights which the noble Duke is trying to safeguard. All these rights have got to be dealt with, defined, and safeguarded at some later stage; and in order to press forward with what I believe is conceded on all sides to be an urgent matter, I most respectfully impress upon your Lordships the desirability of giving a Second Reading to this Bill and of dealing with its Committee stage in Committee of the whole House rather than of sending it to a Select Committee, which must mean delay at a moment when time is the essence of success.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will look upon the answer of my noble friend Lord Crawford as very convincing. I think he himself said that he did not know very much about the matter. Still, we must remember as regards the Ministry of Munition—I think I am right in this—that the Government have found it necessary to appoint a Committee or a Commission to look into the matter. I do not know the particulars. I think there were certain officials of the Ministry who were shareholders of this particular company. However, it is, I think, most desirable, whether what the noble Duke has said is correct or not, that a more really definite answer should be made. It is correct, as I think my noble friend said, that Messrs. Pearson were in negotiations with a large number of landowners which did not come to any definite understanding, and since then the Government have come forward with the Bill.
When told of the great urgency of the Bill your Lordships should remember that a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons about a year ago and that it was dropped after an adverse division there. I think my noble friend Lord Elphinstone said something about another Bill being dropped; or was it the same one? Anyhow, the Bill was very hurriedly introduced in another place shortly before the

753
recess. I believe I am right in saying that it was rushed through all its stages in the course of one sitting, or very nearly so, and then it was brought to your lordships' House, and the noble Marquess stated that it was put off until after the recess.
I think your Lordships must have some farther assurance about certain charges that have been made. It may be said that Messrs. Pearson have no financial interest; and I really do not wish to say a word of any kind against them. But other people to think that they are not being fairly dealt with. I am informed, if, for instance, it is going to be the case that Messrs. Pearson and no other firm is to be allowed to test all the likely areas in this country, that it will practically be impossible for the Ministry of Munitions or any other Government Department to avoid giving them preference over all other firms after the war is over. And it is also possible, if they have all the information before them, to keep out other firms. I cannot see why these Bills should not be committed to Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Elphinstone said there was no great hurry far this Bill, that it practically meant nothing more than regularising matters after the war is over, and then further legislation can taken place. And we have so very little information before us that it seems to me right, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to that course, to give a Second Reading to these Bills and refer them to the Committee as proposed by my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I have no objection to giving a Second Reading to the Bill which is before us in the name, of the noble Duke, although I cannot, for reasons which have been stated by my noble friends, agree to his proposal to refer both Bills to a Select
754
Committee. I have, however, risen not so much to say this, as to comment on the view of the noble Duke who sits at his side, which seems to be shared by some other noble Lords, that the House ought to receive more definite information on this subject. I do not dissent from that view myself. But the noble Duke in his speech made a number of charges of which no notice whatever had been given to any one sitting on this Bench, to which my noble friend who so ably represents the Munitions Department is not in a position to reply, because he had no notice given to him, and with the details of which no other noble Lord on this Bench necessarily has any familiar acquaintance. I think the proper course would be, when we go into the Committee stage of the Government Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, that my noble friend, having acquired the fuller knowledge on the subject to which I referred, should mane a statement to your Lordships' House with such reply as he is able to give, and I am sure it will be a thorough and a good one, to the charges we have heard this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg to move that these two Bills be referred to a Select Committee.
On Question, Motion negatived.

PROTECTION OF IRISH MAIL STEAMERS.
LORD CRANMORE AND BROWNE LORD CRANMORE AND BROWNE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether any, and if so what, precautions have been or are being taken to protect the R.M. steamers plying between Holyhead and Kingstown.

2. Whether it is proposed to make provision for the widows and orphans of officers and members of the crew of the R.M. S.S. "Leinster" who perished on 10th October; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, several questions have been asked in the House of Commons on the subject of the sinking of the "Leinster," but the answers which were given appear to me to have been so

755
unsatisfactory that I have no hesitation in raising the matter again in your Lordships' House. It has been suggested to me that in doing so I am making an attack on the Navy. I think it is unnecessary to disclaim any such intention. No one has a greater admiration than I have for the wonderful work which has been done by the Navy during the four years of the war; no one appreciates more fully than I do the toil, through weary days and sleepless nights, to protect this country from danger, to convoy our soldiers and sailors and those of the Allies, as well as munitions, to foreign countries, and to provide us with those necessities without which it would have been impossible to have carried on the war. Therefore if any mistake has been made with regard to this particular question, I do not think the blame falls on the Admiralty alone; it must be shared equally by the War Office, the Board of Trade, and the Post Office.
But, after all, the question is not to appraise the measure of blame to any of these Departments, but rather to see what were the measures which were taken to provide for the safety of the ships plying between England and Ireland, and, if possible, to make arrangements for greater precautions in the future, so that it may be impossible that such a disaster should occur again. The facts are known to all your Lordships. The mail steamship "Leinster" left Kingstown for Holyhead about 9 o'clock on the morning of October 10, and when she was about twelve miles out from Kingstown she was torpedoed by a German submarine. The first submarine appears to have crippled but not very seriously to have injured her, for it was said by survivors that it was hoped she might be towed back to harbour. But five minutes afterwards another torpedo was launched, which exploded amidships, and in two minutes more the "Leinster" had gone to the bottom—that is, within seven minutes of the first torpedo being fired nothing was left of the "Leinster" but a few boats, some spars and wreckage, and about 600 to 700 human beings struggling for their lives in the angry waves. There they continued, some people think for an hour and ten minutes, others for two hours, before any help appeared. At the end of that time a destroyer came on the scene, and proceeded to rescue those of the passengers and crew who still survived.
The Admiralty have expressed their deep regret that such a misfortune should have occurred, and have stated that all reasonable precautions were taken to safeguard the passage of that ship and of the other Royal Mail boats between the two ports. Furthermore, they give four particular ways in which protection was granted. In the first place they state that "at the time of the accident the faster of the escort craft were patrolling the mail route, and, on the distress signal being given, one of the two destroyers in close proximity, whilst proceeding with all dispatch to the scene, had her fore-bridge wrecked when attempting to steam between nineteen and twenty knots." If a destroyer had been at Holyhead it would only have been thirty miles off the vessel. If the destroyer was anywhere nearer than Holyhead, it is curious that she should take so long to reach the scene of the disaster. The second reason given was that the "Leinster" travels faster than any destroyer which the Admiralty have. Dr. Macnamara stated that the "Leinster" was proceeding at the rate of twenty-three and a-hall knots. I am anxious to know whether the chart which gives particulars of the pace travelled by these boats confirms that statement. I am led to believe that she was not going much above twenty or twenty-one knots. He states that no destroyer could go more than nineteen or twenty knots and, as I have just read to your Lordships, that even at that pace in such a heavy sea the destroyer suffered serious damage. In the third place, he states that in the case of vessels proceeding at as fast a pace as the "Leinster" it is safer for them to trust to the speed which they travel rather than to travel at a slower pace in order that the destroyer may keep pace with them. Last of all, he pointed out that even in a convoy a vessel has not absolute safety, and he instanced the ship "Justitia" which was bring convoyed and which was sunk by submarines.
It is rather presumptuous of a layman to attempt to criticise statements which are made by the Admiralty, but I am going to venture to make some reply to the reasons which have been put forward. In the first place, with regard to the statement about the faster patrol vessels, may I say that the second officer of the "Ulster" states that during the whole passage from Holyhead that morning he did not pass a patrol of any kind. Secondly, with regard to the fact that the "Leinster" travels

757
faster than destroyers, I hardly think that it can be contended that we have no destroyers which go no faster than nineteen knots; in fact, when the Royal Mail ship "Ulster" crossed over she was escorted by an American destroyer which, in the words of a passenger on board the boat, "played round the mail ship," apparently going at the rate of nearly thirty-five knots. It may be quite true that these faster destroyers are used for the purpose of convoying troops from the United States, or for other naval purposes which are even more important than safeguarding passengers between Ireland and England, but I think it ought to be plainly stated that that is the case, and that they are not available for the purpose of escorting the Royal Mail ships. Nor should the public be left under the supposition that we have no destroyers which can go no faster than nineteen knots, and then with great difficulty.
The third explanation which is put forward is that it is safer for fast vessels like the "Leinster" to travel unescorted, trusting in their own speed, rather than to proceed at a slower pace supported by destroyers. I should like to put forward three reasons against this suggestion. In the first place, we must not forget that the first torpedo which was fired at the "Leinster" was not successful in sinking her. It only crippled her, and I very much doubt whether, if she had been escorted by a destroyer, she would have been fired at at all; certainly, if she had been fired at I think that it is almost certain (if she had been escorted) the second torpedo would not have been launched. On the contrary the U-boat, seeing a destroyer escorting the mail ship, would have hurried to get away in case she should be sunk herself, instead of manœuvring to get herself in position to launch after five minutes a second torpedo which succeeded in sending the "Leinster" to the bottom. In the second place it must not be forgotten, even if she had been successful in sinking the "Leinster," that there would have been a destroyer there ready to pick up the survivors, instead of leaving them to battle in an angry sea for one or two hours before they could be rescued. Thirdly, and I think this is the most important reason of all, the destroyer would have been able to be of use in sending S.O.S. signals in all directions. It is not generally known that it was not the "Leinster" which sent out the S.O.S. signal that reached
758
the rescuing boats. I believe that something must have taken place when the boat was torpedoed which interfered with her wireless signalling apparatus, because she was only able to send out a very faint call that was heard by her sister ship the "Ulster" which was only two or three-miles off. The "Ulster" repeated the signal to Kingstown and elsewhere, and it was thus that the S.O.S. signal was transmitted. I think that proof of this is to be found in the reply of Dr. Macnamara, when he states that the S.O.S. signal went out at 9.25 and was only received at Kingstown at 9.50—twenty-five minutes later.
I should like your Lordships to reflect how very narrowly we escaped a very much greater calamity, for only three minutes before the "Leinster" was torpedoed she was passed, within three-quarters of a mile, by the "Ulster." If the U-boat had come to the surface at that time and discharged a torpedo, in all probability both ships would have been sunk, and it is very probable that the S.O.S. signal would not have been sent out. It would then have been a case of what the Germans express a wish for—spurlos versenkt—and we should have to mourn fifteen-hundred victims instead of five hundred. The last instance which was given by Dr. Macnamara was the case of the "Justitia" having been sunk when under convoy. If my noble friend who is going to reply will tell me that since the "Justitia" was sunk the Admiralty have given up the system of convoy, finding it of no use, will allow that there is something in that argument; otherwise it seems to me that, it falls to the ground. We must remember that the "Justitia" was a ship of a very different class from the "Leinster," and was one of a kind which the German Government are much more anxious to sink. From what I have heard, it was: probably attacked by several submarines instead of by one. Of course, there must be cases where, when U-boats attack a convoy, one boat can be sunk, but the. U-boat commander must be prepared for the probability that he in turn will be sent to the bottom. Fortunately very few U-boat commanders are ready to lead such a forlorn hope.
I see that it was stated in another place that although the Royal Mail boats have been travelling this route for four years this is the first one to be sunk. That is.

759
quite true, but it is not the first one against which an attempt has been made. Many attempts have been made to sink these boats. I myself crossed on the "Leinster" two days before she was sunk, and I was told by one of the officials on board that an attempt had been made on the previous day to torpedo her. I do not know if that is the case, but perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell me whether my information is correct. At any rate it is commonly believed in Ireland, and there is no doubt that the directors of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company themselves hold very strong views on the subject. I believe that my noble friend will confirm me when I say that within the last twenty-four hours the Admiralty have received a very strong communication from them urging the necessity for protection for these boats. I have not put any suggestion of the kind on the Paper, but I cannot help thinking that it would be most useful if a small Committee were appointed to go into this matter.
I see that Dr. Macnamara stated that the Admiralty would be very glad for this to be done, were it not that it would involve the time and attention of those wholly occupied in the work of protecting the mercantile marine. I have been informed that the right hon. Member is labouring under a hallucination with regard to this, and that the correspondence which has passed between the various Departments of State on the subject, and between them and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and the evidence that that company could produce would enable the whole matter to be investigated without calling upon any naval officers and men engaged on patrol duty. It has been suggested that three members of your Lordships' House—Earl Loreburn, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Beresford—night well be placed on this Committee, and it would then fall upon them to recommend to the Admiralty what steps should be taken to ensure the safety of these vessels. I do not say that the Admiralty will be able to carry out their recommendations; they have many other important duties connected with the war to carry out; but, at any rate, if they do not do so, it would be public property that they were not able to protect the lives of those who are crossing between England and Ireland. Including those who travel by the North Wall boats, I think there are no less than 5,000 people who travel daily between
760
Kingstown and Holyhead, and if it is impossible adequately to protect their lives surely at least women and children ought not to be allowed to travel by that route except with a special permit. The route between Larne and Stranraer is much easier to protect, because the sea voyage is much shorter.
There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is the question whether it is proposed to make provision for the widows and orphans of the crew of the "Leinster" who perished. Many of us who very often go backwards and forwards to Ireland feel that this is really an individual question. We know nearly everybody on board those boats, from the gallant captain who so ably commanded the ship for many years—all through this war fully recognising the great danger which was incurred both by himself and the passengers—down to the steward and stewardesses, the luggage porters, and others whose Courtesy and attention we all so greatly appreciated. They have lost their lives in the service of the country as truly as if they had fallen on the battlefield. May they rest in peace. But it is the duty of the country, in these circumstances, to see that those who were dependent upon them do not suffer want as well as the bitter grief which they are called upon to bear.
To put myself in order and to enable me to reply if I wish to do so, I shall move that the correspondence which has passed be laid on the Table. I need hardly say that I shall not press for this if, as I anticipate, the Government find difficulty in acceding to the suggestion.
Moved, That the correspondence which has passed between the various Departments of Stale and between them and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company on the subject of the safety of the Royal Mail ships between Holyhead and Kingstown be laid on the Table.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I shall be very slow to intrude on your Lordships any observations of mine, but being one of those who have to cross and re-cross the Channel, and one who is fairly well acquainted, in consequence, with the difficulties and dangers that have beset the navigation of cross-Channel steamers since the war began, I should wish to say a very few words, and especially with regard to the second Question which the noble

761
Lord has put on the Paper. As he has said, all of us who have crossed from time to time knew personally the officers of the "Leinster" who have now in the discharge of their duty ceased to be with us. We have all had personal and practical experience of the manner in which they discharged their duty, in circumstances which, I can testify, brought home to them a feeling almost of certainty that their lives would ultimately be claimed. I can say it of the captain who was in command of that ship. To my knowledge he believed that not only did he run a risk every time he crossed in control of his ship but he firmly believed that in the end the inevitable fate would overtake him which did overtake him. But notwithstanding that this feeling was shared by all the officers and by the humblest members of the crew, they went bravely day after day, night after night, doing their duty under circumstances which entitle them to the very careful consideration of the Government. The fighting men have to meet danger; it is their duty; but at any rate they sometimes have the chance of retaliating on a brutal enemy who may attack them. But those who in civilian service have to risk their lives as these men did—because it is clear that this was a particularly dangerous route—are certainly deserving of the consideration of the Government.
With regard to the general question, it is not very much use finding fault with those who control these matters once the mischief is done. But there is a very strong feeling in Ireland, that while the views which have been put forward in defence of the decision to afford no protection were undoubtedly quite honestly arrived at, they perhaps were somewhat erroneous. The layman, of course, cannot understand the difficulty, but this particular occurrence has claimed victims from the highest and the lowest. It is a subject of comment and intense feeling among all classes in Ireland, and they think that on reconsideration something might at least be done in the future.
In particular there is one matter which I think might undoubtedly be the subject of attention. It is a matter of common knowledge that the boat was attacked only some two or three days before. In a general sense it was known that there was danger. It does not require a war vessel to ascertain whether or not a sub-
762
marine was probably in that particular locality. It may seem curious that put it in that way, but any one who knows the Channel will, I think, understand. The ship was torpedoed close to a sandbank. It was a matter of comment that that would be the natural point of attack by a submarine upon any mail-boat crossing; from Kingstown, and so unfortunately it has proved. Although you cannot ascertain the presence of a submarine with certainty, even a steam trawler in that locality at that time might possibly have been able to give some intimation ashore, and if the intimation had been given by wireless—there is a low power-station at Kingstown—intending passengers could have been warned. At the beginning of time war the practice was adopted of warning intending passengers that submarines were in the Channel, and then they went at their own risk. I speak subject to correction, but my impression is that no warning of this kind was given on this particular occasion, although submarines had undoubtedly been in the Channel some days before. It is really only to avoid anything of this kind occurring again that I have intervened, and if in the future that precaution is taken, something would perhaps be gained.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the first Question put by the noble Lord relates to the Admiralty, and, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Earl who has in the past responded so well and so eloquently for that Department, I have been asked to reply. In the first place, may I express to your Lordships the very deep sympathy of His Majesty's Government and of the Board of Admiralty in particular with the sufferers in this disaster, and with their relatives? I think there is hardly a member of your Lordships' House who in all probability had not friends on that ship, and we feel very deeply the loss we have sustained.
The noble Lord who raised this matter referred to the replies that had been given in the other House. As already stated, the "Leinster" was not on this occasion provided with an escort, nor has the Admiralty any escort forces capable of conducting a vessel, whose speed by Lloyds is twenty-three and-a-half knots, in the weather and high seas prevailing that day. I would point out to my noble friend that it is not merely a question of what speed our destroyers are normally

763
capable of attaining, but of what speed they can attain in rough weather. The noble Lord also alluded to the fact that at the time of the attack the faster escort craft were patrolling the mail route. On the distress signal being given those craft came to the assistance of the "Leinster," and one of the destroyers had her forebridge wrecked while trying to steam between nineteen and twenty knots.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I ask the noble Lord what the distress signal was?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I have no information on that question, but I presume that it was the one usually sent in such circumstances. I am sorry that I have nothing further to state. I was prepared to reply only to the Questions on the Paper, but I will endeavour to go as far as I can into the other points raised by my noble friend in his speech. The fact that this destroyer had her forebridge wrecked while going between nineteen and twenty knots was quoted in the other House, as far as I understand, only to prove that this destroyer in particular, or for that matter, some other ships in His Majesty's Forces, was not capable of going at its full speed in a heavy sea such as was running on that occasion. The general view of the Admiralty is that in the case of such fast vessels as the "Leinster" the usual submarine precautions render them far safer proceeding independently of a patrolled route at a high speed, than would be the case when escorted by ships whose speed, except in calm waters, must inevitably reduce the speed of the ships escorted. This policy is carried out not only in the Irish Channel but in all waters surrounding the United Kingdom.
My noble friend alluded to the case of the "Justitia," which was quoted as showing that escort has not always ensured immunity. He mentioned several facts with regard to the "Justitia," but the only point on which I wish to lay stress in that regard is to show that if submarines attack in number—sas they may at any time—they certainly have a very great chance of getting through any escort which is provided for a ship. I should like to add that a large number of experienced naval officers are devoting their time and energies to the prevent ion of these disasters. I would assure your Lordships that all possible precautions have been and are being taken to protect these vessels against submarine
764
attack, but it is not in the public interest to state the nature of these precautions.
Notwithstanding this deplorable calamity which we so deeply regret, I would remind your Lordships that the Irish Sea, and this service in particular, have been at least as immune as any of the services in the waters around the United Kingdom. The noble and learned lord, Lord Shandon, raised a point with regard to a certain sandbank, and stated that a previous attack having taken place near that sandbank therefore in his view another attack in the same neighbourhood might have been expected. He further said that no warning had been given to passengers. I regret that I have no information on those two points. The reply to the Questions asked by Lord Oranmore have been entrusted to me only as regards the Admiralty, but the noble Lord referred to the fact that these subjects of precaution affect not only the Admiralty but the Board of Trade and other Departments. I would like to assure both noble Lords that the points they have raised to-day will receive the fullest consideration of the Admiralty.
A suggestion was made that no women and children should be conveyed on these boats, and also that the Larne-Stranraer route should be followed. On these two points I would say that the public convenience has to be considered to a great extent, and the Admiralty have been concerned only in doing their best to protect the steamers on the routes that have been used. With regard to the Inquiry which the noble Lord suggested, as I understand the position it would be very undesirable in the public interest to have any further Inquiry; but I can assure him that all the points raised to-day shall have the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.
With regard to the second Question asked by Lord Oranmore, I am glad to be able to answer that entirely in the affirmative. The widows and children and other dependants of the officers and members of the crew of the "Leinster" who lost their lives when the vessel was torpedoed will, as a matter of course, be granted pensions and allowances in accordance with the War Risks Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine. A description of the scheme is given in the print which I shall be glad to forward to my noble friend, and I will endeavour to supplement it by any further information he may desire.
The EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Lord stated that there was no escort on this occasion because the weather was so rough, but my experience is that even in fine weather there is no escort. I cross over pretty often, and the only times I have seen an escort were in one case a dirigible balloon, and in the other case, in fine weather and on a dark night, a destroyer was dodging in front of the mail boat. In Ireland we complain that there has never been sufficient escort for these boats in rough or in fine weather. That is the point to which I should like to draw attention.
My noble friend asked another question—namely, whether the correspondence that has taken place between the Government, or the Admiralty, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company could possibly be laid on the Table. That question has not been answered. I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer it. Then he said that the Irish Channel was as immune us any other part of the sea. I do not know whether he noticed in the paper the other day that there was immense grief amongst the population of Holyhead in consequence of the loss of five vessels which had been sunk in the Irish Channel. That is a rather serious loss, in addition to many others we have heard of. I am very glad indeed to hear that compensation, or rather war risks compensation, is going to be given to the relatives of the men drowned. That is the most satisfactory part of the answer, but I really hope the public—because not only Irishmen but a great many Englishmen cross over on serious business between England and Ireland—will be re-assured as far as possible that proper escorts will be granted.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the experience of the noble Earl and mine are rather different. Only twice on the pretty numerous occasions on which I have crossed between England and Ireland has the vessel had and escort, and one of those occasions was the only occasion on which the shi was fired at by a torpedo, and was missed by only a very few yards. Therefore I think the immunity given by an escort may not be as great as my noble friend imagines. I am sure that noble in this House would not desire that with the enormous demands made upon the Admiralty for the protection of the incoming American troops, and of other ships of a most important mercantile character, an undue number of destroyers
766
Should be detached for the protection of the mail, which has enjoyed the most extraordinary immunity during the four years of the war.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not, of course, desire to disagree with what my noble friend has just said. We all recognise that the Admiralty has claims made upon it all over the world which must be satisfied, and we must trust to their discretion in setting off one against the other. At the same time the answers given to-night, like those given last week in another place, do not, I think, realise the very great depth of feeling that exists in Ireland over this matter. We, of course, entirely accept, and would have expected nothing else from my noble friend, what he has said as to the sympathy which the Admiralty feel for the victims of this outrage.
It is very repellent, I am sure, to all of us to criticise the Navy in any way, because we realise the enormous task which is set them and we admire the way in which they carry it out. At the same time there is an impression—and no answer which has yet been given will remove that impression—that over this business someone has blundered, and we feel that we want a strong assurance that that blunder will not be repeated. There can only be one place in which the blunder has occured. It has not occurred through the officials of the company. Ever since January, 1915, the company have been appealing to and urging upon the Admiralty that while they have been responsible themselves for the running of the mail boats—it is not like the mail boats in the English Channel, where they are run under the orders of Naval officers themselves—their strongest opinion has been that they have not been sufficiently protected. Their view has not been accepted by the Admiralty, and therefore the responsibility is upon the Admiralty for what has occurred. As my noble friends have said, the anxiety of the company has been founded not merely upon nervousness or fear but upon experience. My noble friend spoke of an occasion when a torpedo was fired at the mail boat. I have been informed of four occasions when a torpedo was fired at the mail boat and missed it. Surely that was enough to warn somebody responsible that, whatever the steps were that were being taken, they were likely to prove insufficient some day; and some further steps could have been taken. My noble friend

767
(Viscount Midleton) has had the unfortunate experience that while his ship was being escorted he was fired at. I am not going to join with him, or anybody else, in a controversy on a subject of naval tactics, but I should have thought that any layman might be allowed to argue that when a submarine knows that somebody is about ready to hit back very hard, it will be very much more careful in selecting its target. And, my Lords, we know that the escort system is in existence elsewhere. If it is correct elsewhere, why not in the Irish Channel?
We hear a great deal of the speed of the boats, but I have one or two friends at Folkestone and Boulogne who would be very angry indeed if it were suggested that their boats were slower than the Kingstown and Holyhead boats. Yet ever since the torpedoing of the "Sussex" in March, 1916—I think since that date I have crossed the Channel from Folkestone to Boulogne as many times as any one of your Lordships—I know of no case where the boat has not been escorted by destroyers. My comment upon the argument that the Holyhead boats are too fast to allow an escort in rough weather is that if it is too rough for an escort to go with them they ought not to be allowed to go at all. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say towards the end of his remarks, and we know it will be so, that the authorities will keep this matter very keenly in their minds. I am sure they will. But I cannot sit down without saying that unless the protection given in the future is different from the protection which has been given in the past, public opinion in Dublin, which is very strong in this matter, will not be satisfied that they are being treated as fairly—and that is not an unfair word to use—in the matter as they deserve.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I ask the noble Lord, before he replies, whether the mail boats have been escorted by aircraft, and whether these boats always take the same course in proceeding across the Irish Channel. There is one other point, and it is this. I do not think sufficient attention has been drawn to the firing of that second torpedo. The first torpedo, as I understand, practically destroyed the ship and ensured its being sunk. The second torpedo practically prevented the saving of life on a very large scale. The act of firing a torpedo at all at a mail steamer was a vile proceeding, but the
768
Germans showed that they could sink to a greater depth of infamy by firing a second torpedo, which probably prevented the saving of a very large number of lives. If the commander of that submarine comes into our hands I think he should be tried for murder, because it was not a naval necessity but an act of deliberate murder. I hope his name will be discovered and placed on the list of those to whom we hope to have something to say when the war is over. It would not be vengeance but pure justice.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I will reply to the noble Lord who has just sat down, and who raised three points. The first was as to protection by aircraft. The second was with regard to whether the ships keep the same course. On those two points I would say, as I said before, that I have only gone into this question during the last two days, as I had no knowledge that I was going to reply till then. I will go into that matter and ascertain the facts. In regard to the question of the second torpedo, I will also put forward that view, in which I personally venture to concur. With regard to what fell from my noble friend opposite (Lord Donoughmore) I know of my own knowledge that the Admiralty realise very deeply their responsibility in this matter. I would like to make that perfectly clear to the noble Earl. The view put forward in your Lordships' House this evening shall be laid before them, and they will receive, I know, their continued attention and the utmost care.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHANGES IN TRADE NAMES.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. If a German named Wichmann has anything to do with George Mann and Company, Leeds Tool Co, Henry-street, Gray's Inn-road, W.C. This company makes shells.

2. If a firm now trading as the Metal and General Agency, 5, Whittington-avenue, E.C., were not formerly Weager and Funck, and if James H. Weager is not trading under the name of the Metal and General Agency, this firm being of German orgin.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with regard to my first Question I am told that this firm is controlled by this German, and it is believed that he took up work at Leeds in order to avoid internment. Besides that, the Ministry of Munitions are perfectly aware of this action of this German. I do not quite see the object of the Government or the Ministry of Munitions employing Germans at-all, whether they have been naturalised or not. Is there any advantage in employing them? That is a question I should like to ask His Majesty's Government, because if there is any advantage in employing them let us be told so at once, and what is the advantage. I have brought up this subject before, and a great many people are very sick to hear that the Germans are employed in any way whatsoever, whether they are naturalised or unnaturalised.
With regard to the second Question this man Weager was formerly, I am told, Weager and Funck, and he is trading now as the Metal and General Agency, 5, Whittington-avenue, E.C. This is a firm which imports are into this country, and it would, of course, have full knowledge, or rather notice, of sailings sent to it. Besides this, the firm is of German origin. Again I ask, what is the object of allowing this firm to import are into this country, and to have knowledge of sailings? They have to have notice of their sailings and they can acquire knowledge which they can pass on to their German friends. I wish the Government would tell one exactly why these men are employed at all, why they are allowed to trade in any way. There are just as good Englishmen as Germans, and a great deal better, and we would much rather see them trading. I hope the Government will give some satisfactory answer to that, because the last answer was very unsatisfactory.
I wish now to allude to another matter about which there has been a mistake. I mentioned it on July 8. I have two letters from the Home Office with regard to a man Balled Dr. Wiensenground, Managing Director of the Power Plant Company at West Drayton. I believe he is still at work there. I stated that he had been in communication with Vogel's pump engineers, in Vienna, and that he had obtained blue prints from them It reads in Hansard as if he had sent blue prints to Vienna. I did not say anything of the sort, and if there is any mistake of that kind I beg to
770
withdraw it, because in consequence of that I have had letters practically accusing me of not being quite straightforward about the matter. He had the blue prints from Vienna through a German in America, and therefore I said that if he could do that with Vienna he could communicate with Germans. I beg to put the Questions which appear in my name on the Paper.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, with regard to the last point raised by the noble Earl, I understand that the withdrawal he has just made will be noted. With regard to the Questions he has asked, I will endeavour to answer them both to the best of my ability. George Karl Heindrich Wichmann, who is a naturalised British subject of German origin, was naturalised in February, 1913, and he is connected both with George Mann and Company, Ltd., and the Leeds Tool and Manufacturing Company, Ltd. In George Mann and Company, Ltd., he holds 19,749 ordinary shares and 11,287 preference shares out of an issued capital of 30,000 ordinary shares and 36,550 preference shares. There are nine directors of the company, of whom Wichmann is one, the other eight being British-born subjects. As Wichmann is a British subject, although of German origin, the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to deal with his interest in this company. I trust I made that Clear to the noble Earl. As he is a British subject, although of German origin, the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to deal with his interest in the company. Of course, the powers of the Board of Trade, as the noble Earl knows, ate not supreme, but are limited by law, and the Board are not able to interfere in this case, Wichmann himself being a British subject. In the case of the Leeds Tool and Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Wichmann holds 1,000 shares out of an issued capital of 3,002 shares. He is a director of the company, his co-director being a British-born subject.
With regard to the second Question of the noble Earl, the business of the Metal and General Agency of 5, Whittington-avenue, E.C., was inspected by Order of the Ward of Trade in January last. The inspectors reported that the proprietors of the business were formerly J. G. H. Weager, a British subject, British-born, whose people have been British for generations, and J. F. Funck, a German subject; that the partnership was dissolved as from December 31, 1916; and that Funck remained in

771
the employ of the firm as chief clerk. Even if the partnership had not been dissolved the case would not have come within the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Acts which enable the Board of Trade to order a business to be wound up or discontinued if it is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of or under the control of enemy subjects, inasmuch as the interest of Mr. Funck as partner in the business did not exceed the interest of Mr. Weager, the British partner. I trust that it is clear to the noble Earl. The powers of the Board of Trade are limited in this respect, and they have no further power to act. If any action is taken at all in a case of this sort, it could only be taken, as I understand it, through the Home Office. The Board of Trade jurisdiction ends and begins in the way I have already stated to the noble Earl. I trust that the noble Earl will understand that if my answer is not satisfactory to him, it is at any rate the fullest that it is in my power to give him.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the case which the noble Earl has brought forward is only one of a great many. I could name four or five of the same kind, in which the naturalized German does pretty much what he likes. And I think, the answer of the noble Lord really amounts to this—that we have not got, even now, nearly enough power to deal with these German firms, really German, though some of them are converted, under a sort of camouflage for the time being, into British firms. But we have not got nearly enough power to deal wit h them and to stop their proceedings in this country.
THE EARL OF MAYO: If the Government have decided to allow these men to go on earning money in this company—Wichmann is a Director of this Company, and Funck is camouflaged as a clerk to the company—if the Government insists on their acting in this way and doing that, what can we do? We can do nothing at all. I think it is Chief Justice Sankey's Committee which is the one that deals with interning aliens. I think the noble Lord said that the Board of Trade could not have anything to do with the matter. But is there no other body that could have
772
anything to do with the matter? Are these men to be allowed to go on making money in this country, as Germans, and doing the practical business of the company?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I trusted I was clear in my information, but I will repeat it, if I may. Where a company is in question, it is the Board of Trade who look after that; where it is Individuals, it is a question for the Home Office. In this instance these people are trading under the law of the land, and, this being so, the Board of Trade is not in a position to interfere in the matter. I will not state whether I sympathise with my noble friends, or not. I have stated the facts baldly, and I am sorry I can do no more.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of October 16.]

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Lucan,

L. Saye and Sele,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (Chairman).

L. Treowen,

L. Queenborough;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 29th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired as also Counsel for the Bills.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before seven o'clock.