May I ask the Leader of the House a question in reference to the Orders of the Day—namely, whether he proposes to take Order No. 5 (Criminal Law Amendment Bill) to-day; and, if not, on what date he will take that Order?

We propose to-day to take only the first two Orders. I have not yet considered at what time we can take the Order indicated.

I know nothing at all about the Bill. I have not had time to read it, and I think the Minister in charge of it might, for at least five minutes, tell us what is in it before we agree to the Second Reading.

We ought to congratulate the Government upon bringing in a Bill which really does not want any explanation. It is perfectly simple. Any of us who are interested in this article, or in the development of the industry in the United Kingdom, cannot fail to congratulate the Government upon bringing in such a measure. It is perfectly simple in its provisions, and I do not think even the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) need have suggested that it wanted any lengthy exposition. All over the world difficulties exist in the way of searching for and getting petroleum, owing to the complications of ownership in the land, and to a variety of other causes. This Bill will automatically sweep away all those difficulties. If anyone has reason to believe that petroleum can be found in any part of this country he will be able to get a licence to search and to mine for petroleum, and to make it available for the purposes of the United Kingdom—a very desirable thing when it is remembered that there is hardly an acre of land in the Kingdom in which there are not all kinds of rights of ownership and tenancy and other rights which would probably stand in the way of people who are skilled in getting petroleum being allowed to undertake that duty. Then there is a very moderate royalty of 9d. a ton, and the Commission which is dealing with the matter will be able, after paying, the expenses out of that 9d. a ton, to apportion the rest of the money amongst the owners of the property in any way they think fit. As one who has had some knowledge of the petroleum industry for the last twenty years in various parts of the world, I say that when the Bill is passed, if there is any petroleum to be got in England, it will be more easily searched for, it will be got on better terms, and the owners will be more equitably compensated than in any other country in the world. I congratulate the Government upon bringing forward a measure of this kind in good time, and I congratulate the whole industry on the Department being placed under the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is peculiarly in a position to deal with a matter of this kind. As regards petroleum generally, it is to our Colonies that we have to look for the supplies of the British Empire. Petroleum is of very great importance to us as an Empire and as a nation, because, although there is a quarter of the habitable globe under the control of the British Empire, there are not 5 per cent. of the available known petroleum supplies in the British Empire. It is therefore of the utmost importance that attention should be paid to the subject, and that anything possible which can be done to search for and develop and make use of this very essential article for the future should now be begun. I am glad to see the Bill, and I do not think there is a single word of criticism which could usefully be made against any of its provisions.

I did not quite understand the relevance of the remarks of the last speaker in regard to the Colonies. As far as I understand, the Bill affects only the home country. The last Act passed by this House before rising for the Recess was the Corn Production Act which I opposed. This is a Bill for the producton of petroleum, which I intend to support, though I hope for considerable changes in it before it becomes an Act. The Corn Production Act began with a recognition of the right of owner and occupier to use or misuse or not use the land owned or occupied. To induce its use in the way most beneficial to the nation a huge bribe in the shape of a guaranteed price for the products most needed was granted to a section of producers—a bribe which must mean large additional profits to farmers, and in course of time a large additional price for the land and a large additional revenue——

The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the Corn Production Act. He must pass on to the Bill we are now discussing.

I mentioned the old Act only to point out the contrast between it and this Bill. This Bill begins at the other end—the right end, I think. Clause 8 asserts of one of Nature's gifts, petroleum, which is just as much land in the economic sense as the soil itself, the absolute ownership of the Crown, namely of the nation. The principle is at least as old as the feudal system. One of the greatest calamities that ever befell this country was its abandonment when in 1661 feudalism for landlords was abolished, though practically retained for their tenants, and a Parliament of landlords, by a majority of one, voted their feudal burdens off their own backs on to the producers and consumers of the country.

That Act placed the future development of the natural resources of this country, and therefore of its industries and its population, absolutely at the mercy of the landed proprietors. By removing all economic pressure and thus by making possible without loss to them the withholding from productive use of those resources, and the hampering and even prohibition of their development, except at their price, and along the lines laid down by their autocratic will and pleasure, it has enabled them ever since to abstract from the workers a large proportion of their product, and to create the conditions that have overcrowded our towns and enslaved and impoverished our people.

These matters of ancient history are not really relevant to this Bill. The hon. Member is taking advantage of this Bill to make a general survey of the land question. That is not relevant, and I must ask the hon. Member to come closer to the subject matter of the Bill.

I am sorry, Sir, if you consider I am trespassing. I think this Bill raises a principle which ought to be discussed. In so far as this Bill declares the exclusive and unchangeable right of the people of the country to petroleum, existing in the soil of their country, it will have my enthusiastic support. It will be a valuable precedent when, in the reconstruction after the War, these same people examine the foundation of our land system and discover and reclaim the rights in their native land of which for over two centuries they and their forefathers have been deprived by legal enactments. But having asserted this public right in Clause 1, the Bill proceeds in Clause 2 to give it away. From every ton of crude petroleum produced 9d. is to be reserved and paid to those interested in the land from which it is recovered. Why? Is it for any effort of expenditure made by them? No! It is merely for having done nothing and continuing to do nothing except stand in the way of this necessary industry. If the petroleum is there now it has been there always. It has not been bored for and produced before. It is because those who own the surface have never sought it or done anything to develop this important and valuable commodity, which all the while was there waiting for the application of labour and capital. More than that, any such application by others has been impossible without their consent and without tribute paid to them. In other words, the landowner has simply stood in the way and prevented what in other countries is, and here might have become, a profitable industry, which would have made us less dependent on foreign production and immensely eased our difficulty in the conduct of this War. For this virtuous and patriotic conduct they are to be rewarded out of public funds, and 9d. is to be added to the cost of every ton of crude material, which must, of course, be paid by consumers who as individuals and as citizens have already suffered through its being withheld.

If this petroleum belongs to the public, then none of it belongs to landowners, and there is no justice or reason in paying them a royalty on public property. And what is a royalty? Surely it is a payment due to the Crown, not by it. Clause 8 empowers the Board of Trade to search and bore for petroleum either itself or through the agency of a licensee but includes a proviso limiting its right to do so and leaving in the landlord's hands the power to obstruct as before, or to get his own terms, which may be extortionate, before allowing the Government access to their own property. But the ownership of property so clearly set up in Clause 1 ought to involve an absolute right to have access to it and to use it. I hope in Committee to see this proviso removed. When private interests conflict with public, private interests should give way not less but more in the case of land which derives its value from the community, than in that of property which is the creation of human labour, and is therefore owned by right of creation. This land neither is nor ever can be.

I recognise that I have no right to criticise these proposals unless I have an alternative I think better. I suggest, therefore, that if the Government wish to develop a petroleum industry, and enable the public to reap the full benefit of their ownership of this natural commodity, to which this Bill, when it becomes an Act, gives statutory expression, they should adopt a plan that would at once release the land and attract capital. Already they have artificially inflated, not the value, but the price of land by the Corn Production Act. Let them complete and bring up to date the valuation the completion of which has been for the time suspended.

Then let them take power to acquire at the valuation such sites as they think suitable for boring and either acquire them or lease them compulsorily to licensees at a fair rental based on that valuation. Where boring discloses the presence of petroleum it will enormously enhance the value of that land. Unless acquired or leased before operations begin that enhanced value will inevitably find its way into the pockets of the landlords instead of the public Treasury, without any effort on their part entitling them to it. A tax on production, which is what a royalty would be, discourages and retards production. A tax on actual value, whether produced or not, which would be as heavy if not worked and no heavier however successfully worked, would penalise neglect and stimulate production. The valuation should be kept up to date and registered annually. If the Government would take advantage of this new departure to encourage the investment of capital, firstly, by substituting in this instance local rates on current real value, and exempting from them all capital expenditure on buildings and machinery, and, secondly, by substituting a tax on current value for a royalty on production, capital and enterprise would flow into this new industry, the petroleum resources of the country would develop rapidly, a large field of employment would open out for our returning soldiers, and the nation would enjoy the revenue that will otherwise flow into the pockets of the landlords. I hope Amendments will be moved in Committee to secure these results, and I hope the President will be willing to accept them. It will merely apply to this new industry the sound principle that the natural resources of a country should provide that country's revenue so far as possible in lieu of taxation of personal effort and enterprise. It need interfere in no way with existing methods as applied to other industries and other forms of property. But it would be an object-lesson of the greatest value when the whole question of reconstruction after the War has to be faced. It would, I believe, furnish the key of all others most effective in solving the problem of unemployment, by unlocking the door of opportunity to labour and giving it access to the untold wealth that lies hidden in the earth untapped and unrealised because access is barred by monopoly based on exemption.

I need hardly tell the House it is not through any want of courtesy on my part that I did not say anything in introducing this Bill. I really thought that all the information the House could require, as far as the Second Reading was concerned, was given in the explanation which I offered when I asked for leave to introduce the Bill. As my Friend the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) has told the House, the Bill is a very short one, and a very simple one. My hon. Friend who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not accept his challenge now, and fight and argue over the question of land and its difficulties. I know he told us that in the feudal days the owners of land lightened their shoulders of the burdens which they had to bear. Certainly, since those days their shoulders have been sufficiently weighted by new burdens, and if he looks at the matter dispassionately, if he can, he will find that full justice has been done. I do not think that this is the occasion on which to discuss the whole question of land and its inherent properties. What we really are concerned with is that oil, if it be here—at present we do not know whether it is—shall be obtained as expeditiously and cheaply as possible. We vest in the Crown and we give the Crown, through Government Departments, the right and power to explore for it and obtain it, and we allow them to do it through people on whom they may devolve the duty, and we fix a royalty. Exception is taken to that by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, but I think that that is the only way in which you are going to secure two things, to which I have already referred, which are essential in themselves—expedition and economy of administration. If you are going, in your legislation for the purpose of gaining oil, to fight all these battles and raise all these questions, you will not get your Bill in time to be of any use at all.

Oil is probably more important at this moment than anything else. You may have men, munitions, and money, but if you have not got oil, which is to-day the greatest motive power that you use, all your other advantages would be of comparatively little value. Our object is to adopt the simplest and least expensive machinery in order to explore for it and use it if we find it. Since this Bill has been introduced there has been practically no criticism of it outside the House. I have informed myself of the references to this Bill in the various newspapers. It has not by any means escaped notice. It cannot be said that the people interested are not aware of its terms. It has been very generally discussed, and there has been practically no criticism. Consequently I thought my duty would be to wait for developments on this Debate, rather than to make explanations, but as two hon. Members have suggested that I ought to have said something, I have made these few remarks.

There is only one other thing to be said. As to the mode of procedure: for the present, and during the War, we shall act under Defence of the Realm Regulations. When the War is over we shall proceed to further developments, supposing that seems to be necessary. There are already existing provisions sufficient, I believe, for the purpose, provisions known to the House—those which are by provisional order, those which proceed by way of private Bill. It may be that they will not prove adequate for our object. If so, then it will be necessary, before further developments are made, to obtain fresh legislation for the purpose. The Defence of the Realm Regulations give all the powers that are now necessary. By the Bill we lay down the main principles which have been ex- plained by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby, and which have been already referred to. I hope that the House will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill without any great delay. It is desirable to proceed with it as rapidly as possible, because, as I told the House on the introduction, the experience of other countries tells us that once the idea gets abroad that there is anything like petroleum to be found, the spirit of enterprise and competition and speculation is aroused. Immense sums have been spent in other countries in searching for oil, in cases in which the money has really been wasted. Our object is to prevent anything of the kind. Our object is to secure this concession for the Crown and for the country, and to secure it expeditiously and economically. I believe that this Bill would secure these ends. I do not think it necessary to say anything more in regard to its provisions which are really very clear and very simple. All I desire is to ask the House to be good enough to give the Second Reading with as little delay as is consistent with allowing hon. Gentlemen to say what they desire to say in regard to its underlying principle.

4.0 P.M.

I hope that I may be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought in this measure. As far as I am concerned, it has my support, but there are some matters to which I should like at this stage to call attention, because there may not be opportunity later on. I listened very closely to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill on the 15th of August, and I also read the very interesting article in the "Times" three days later, on "English Petroleum and the Quest for Oil," with special reference to various areas that were indicated. I had hoped we might be able to hear something, something more along these lines, but very likely the right hon. Gentleman considered it undesirable to go into particulars of that character at this stage of the legislation. The point that I would like to make about the Bill is this: We welcome it as far as it goes, but I must express my regret that it does not go a little further. I believe I am right in saying that it is the fact, as to giving the Crown the exclusive right of searching and boring for, and getting petroleum in the United Kingdom, that one would have liked, if it had gone a little further, and had actually vested directly in the Crown all petroleum in the United Kingdom. There seems to be a very strong case for that. Of course, one goes on the general principles that the gifts of nature, so far as practicable, ought to be regarded as vested in the Crown for the benefit of the people, and petroleum is, as it happens, a case in which this principle can be very clearly applied. Although various experiments, broadly speaking, may be decided by the right hon. Gentleman, the question of whether petroleum will or will not be got is at present in the problematic stage. That being so, and as there is no vested petroleum interest at all, it seems to me to be an excellent reason why petroleum should be absolutely declared to be within the prerogative of the Crown.

What I am advocating now is not without precedent, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that silver and gold mines have been for centuries within the prerogative of the Crown. There is still a further reason with reference to petroleum that we have not heard mentioned in this Debate yet. So far as I know—I speak with some diffidence of course—the common law on the subject enables the owner of land to bore through his land in order to get at whatever he can within its area, and he may get liquid from a spring that is underneath someone else's land. Hence the difficulty arises, in the case of petroleum, who is to receive the compensation, If the Crown or the licensee of the Crown bores, he does not know where the petroleum is taken from, for it may be a subterraneous deposit of petroleum. To whom is the compensation to go? The Board of Trade, I think, has formed what may be called a petroleum district, and the royalty to be paid in respect of petroleum is to be divided, as the Board of Trade thinks fit, between the landowners in that district. That is a very strong thing to do at this stage, because it brings into law a new principle which I believe I am right in saying has never been applied before. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, when attempting to get over the difficulty of not knowing whose petroleum it is, by making a general pool for the benefit of landowners of the district concerned, at least should show some precedent for such a course. I have looked very carefully, and I am inclined to think that there is no precedent for this particular action. Of course, it may be said that there is no analogy to the case of petroleum, but I venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman, though doubtless he is familiar with the fact, that there is to some extent an analogy to the case of petroleum, and he will find it in brine pumping. In brine pumping there is an arrangement in Cheshire, in Wiltshire, and several other places in the country, but there is absolutely no provision for an area of brine in which the landowners, whose brine may be taken, are to be compensated.

We have, however, the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891, and here you have a constructive feature to which I would like to refer the right hon. Genleman. There are two features in the Bill, apart from the matters referred to, that do not seem to me altogether satisfactory. The first is the procedure to be adopted if the Crown, or the Board of Trade themselves, make a boring in a given district. What is the procedure to be? I myself have looked through the Bill and I am unable to get any clear answer to that question. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that, in that case, he means to proceed, in present circumstances, under the Defence of the Realm Act. That clears away my difficulties so far as the present is concerned. But we are not quite so clear as to what it should be in the future. The suggestion is made that after the War is over we may proceed by private Bill or Provisional Order. It is well known how costly either method of procedure is, and disadvantages arise if you bring in the Land Clauses Compensation Act, which would probably be the case. On that point I throw out the suggestion that some Clause should be inserted so that this legislation may be based on such a priciple that after the War is over and the Defence of the Realm Regulations Act has ceased to operate, we may have satisfactory machinery, without having recourse to fresh legislation of a kind of which this House has found the disadvantages in the past. The second point naturally suggests itself to anyone who looks at the Brine Pumping Act of 1891. That Act was passed, as the House knows, to remedy the difficulty that arose in this way: According to common law, as is well known, the owner of land is entitled to the support of his soil where there is brine under the earth. If there was a single person pumping brine and there was a subsidence of another owner's soil, then the person pumping the brine would be liable to damages to the person interested in the land. In these brine-pumping districts, however, it was not a case of an individual pumping brine, but it was a case of a number of companies pumping brine, and very considerable damage was being done to the surface. So this House passed a measure designed to constitute brine-pumping districts, the basis being that all those who are pumping brine should pay into a common fund, to be regarded as a pool from which those who suffered by reason of soil subsidence should receive compensation. I put to the Government that what happens with regard to brine pumping might also happen in the case of petroleum by boring, and the true basis of compensation is not compensation merely because you happen to own some land that may have petroleum under it, but that the basis of compensation should be that if by pumping petroleum the surface is damaged——

That does not exist; it never has happened; there is no case in point anywhere in the world. The hon. Member is imagining a state of affairs that does not exist at all.

I really do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that. The very thing I have been advocating has been devised in the case of brine pumping, and an Act was passed to get over that very difficulty.

In regard to brine, but not petroleum.

I am taking an analogous case. I have no doubt what is in the hon. Member's mind is that there are deep petroleum bores, but it is well known that there are many petroleum bores not at all deep. In regard to this country we do not know whether petroleum will be found or not, or how deeply we may have to bore to get it, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman cannot take exception to the suggestion I make to the Government, that the analogy of brine pumping should be followed, and that there should be some provision that if royalties are to be levied, those royalties should, in the first place, be treated as a pool, out of which compensation should be paid in respect of subsidence of surface, if in fact it so happens that the surface has subsided by reason of pumping. That is all I venture to suggest. While taking, the view that this is the true basis of compensation, I venture to suggest that the rights of the Crown should be enlarged, and that the amounts of royalty to be paid by the Crown, or by the Crown's licensees, should be revised, and should be reduced from 9d. to, perhaps, 3d. I do not want to go into the matter any further, but I put those considerations before the House, because I think that when a Bill of this sort is passing through it, they are really worth being borne in mind. My last word would be to lay very great stress not only upon giving the Crown exclusive right to search and bore for petroleum, but to make it quite clear that any petroleum obtained should be regarded as vested in the Crown as a whole.

I hope my right hon. Friend will not think me a deep petroleum bore if I ask him two questions. One is, does this Bill continue ad infinitum, or only for the period of the War? Light should be thrown on this question if there is to be a chance of getting this Bill.

The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to pumping brine as analogous to the pumping of petroleum, and the hon. Member (Mr. Rutherford) interrupted him to say that there was no analogy between the two, and I would add that if petroleum is found in this country, the pumping of it will certainly not do any harm to the surface. The hon. Member for Haggerston had the courage to suggest that petroleum should be taken as the absolute prerogative of the Crown. I am opposed to that. I quite appreciate the courage with which he makes the suggestion, but I would point out to him that the first Clause of this Bill does not assert, as he stated, that petroleum is the property of the Crown. What it does assert is that His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for, and getting, petroleum. That does not place petroleum in the position of being the inherent right of the Crown; it does the very opposite. The hon. Member for Haggerston referred to the subject of royalties, and to the landowner who, as proprietor of rich petroliferous land, preferred that his interest should await a Government coming along a hundred years hence, or five or ten centuries hence, to offer a royalty. In fact, we were told he was going to reap where he had not sown and gather where he had not strawed. That was the picture, the very vivid picture, which the hon. Member for Haggerston drew to the House. I venture to think the position is a very different one. There are indications of petroleum in this country. As one who has been associated with the finding of petroleum in many lands, I have had several propositions at different times put before me for the finding of petroleum in England. I have even employed eminent geologists to go down and report upon those discoveries. In every case the report which has come has been to the same effect, that the eminent geologist regarded the proposition as extremely interesting and that he would like to see a bore put down. They always say it is extremely interesting from the geological point of view.

I am delighted that the Government has come forward with this measure because the indications, such as they are, of the existence of petroleum in this country makes the matter eminently one for the Government to take up since it is not worth any man's money to search for petroleum under existing circumstances. The question of land tenure has been referred to by the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Rutherford), and that is one of the great difficulties. It is not the only difficulty. The main difficulty is the doubt whether petroleum is there in commercial quantity, and because of that the matter is eminently one for the Government of the country to deal with. The hon. Member for Haggerston said that the royalty was something that might become extremely onerous, and that it would he far better for the State to take the piece of land suspected of being petroliferous, either by leasing it or buying it on terms which would be satisfactory to the hon. Member. I venture to think that anyone who has been associated with the petroleum industry in any part of the world will agree that when you are dealing with a field, as to which it is doubtful whether petroleum exists in commercial quantities, it is far better to have the free right of boring. If you get the petroleum you have only to pay a certain amount of royalty, and you have not the elaborate paraphernalia of the leasing and purchasing of land because some eminent geologist thinks petroleum may be there The alternative suggested by the hon. Member would involve ten times the expense of the royalty system. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill. I think it deserves a Second Reading. I hope it will be put on the Statute Book, and that as the result of the judicious expenditure of a few hundreds of thousands of pounds we may know something more of the condition of affairs 2,000 or 3,000 feet underground than we know at present, and that if there is petroleum there in commercial quantity my right hon. Friend will succeed in getting it.

Reading the Bill for the first time, I was struck by the fact that it is a Bill which must be limited in its operations to the present War, or, at all events, to the continuance of the Defence of the Realm Act, because the first Clause says:

"His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting petroleum within the United Kingdom;"

and Clause 8 says:

"The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, may search and bore for and get petroleum … provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring on His Majesty or any other person any right to enter on or interfere with land for the purpose of searching or boring for or getting petroleum which he does not enjoy apart from this Act."

We are told by the President of the Board of Trade that the Crown or the Government or the Board of Trade, or some other authority, has the power of entering on lands for the purpose of getting petroleum under the Defence of the Realm Act, and under no other power. Therefore, it follows that as soon as that Act expires by the termination of the War and a certain number of months afterwards, the Crown or the Board of Trade or any other Government Department would not be able to enter on land at all to search for or get petroleum, but the bare right will remain in the Crown of the ownership of all the petroleum in the kingdom. It is perfectly clear that this Bill makes a gift of all the petroleum in the land in this kingdom to the State for all time, but only gives the Crown power through a Government Department to enter on land, and get it during the currency of the Defence of the Realm Act and no longer. I think it is a pity that the Bill is so limited. There is no reason, if the Crown is to have the sole exclusive right of getting petroleum, why it should not have that power after the War is over. It seems to me to be ridiculous to limit the power to the period of the War and to require another Act of Parliament to get it after the War is over. By this Bill they have the absolute and exclusive right to the petroleum, and they are to come to Parliament again to ask for another Bill to allow a Government Department to enter on land and get the petroleum. If the policy of the Bill is right that for the future this natural resource shall be vested in the State for all time, and that the power should be given to the State to get it during the War, then I submit that power should be given to get it after the War is over, for which purpose it is absolutely necessary to give power to enter on the land. That is the criticism which I have to pass. It means that this Bill is practically limited to the duration of the War and no more. The quesion of whether all the natural resources of this country should be vested in the people which has been put forward by the hon. Member opposite is an argument which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would include the air we breathe and the water we drink.

The air we breathe is.

And should be vested in the people. I do not agree with the principle that all the natural resources should be owned by the State. The hon. Member's argument is that land and coal and other natural resources should be the property of the people, and that the immense rights of private property should be abolished. I do not agree with that. The principle of the Bill, I think, is extremely good. It deals with a matter which has never been before worked in this country, and I think it would be advisable, since no rights of property have been created in it, that it should belong to the State, because it is one of those things the property in which must always be very indeterminate. Nobody knows where the petroleum may come from. You may be taking other people's oil from other people's land. It would, I think, have been a very good thing if originally people had not been allowed to get rights of property in coal and if it had aways belonged to the State, and now that we are beginning without any vested interests or rights of property in petroleum we should say that the State should own that property which at present appears to be of such vital importance to the nation in time of war.

I propose to answer some of the points put about this Bill. First of all, let me deal with the questions which were asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Tennant), and to which the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss) referred. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this Bill is permanent. The Bill is permanent, and the principle of the Bill is just as necessary whether we are at war or at peace. The main object of the Bill is to avoid the waste of national resources. Whether they belong to private individuals or otherwise, we should all agree that they are equally national resources, and that it would be mischievous that they should be wasted. Although we have no petroleum fields in this country, there has been a great deal of experience, particularly in the United States, and great waste and loss and unnecessary expenditure through uncontrolled boring on small ownerships. The justification for dealing with petroleum in this manner permanently as well as during the War, is that it is a liquid, and no liquid minerals have been found in this country. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. D. White) has brine in mind, but he probably knows that brine is not a liquid. Brine is solid salt, which is made into liquid by pumping water through it. The brine is there as solid rock, and when you pump water through it and dissolve it you remove the support and it subsides. That does not apply to petroleum, which is a liquid like water, and I have never heard of any case of even millions of gallons of water causing any subsidence. Petroleum is a liquid found in solid rock and is obtained like water, without affecting the stability of the land. In the case of brine, the position is the reverse. As to the point raised that the Bill cannot be permanent because it does not provide for entering upon land after the War, I think I may again quote the analogy of water. In my hon. Friend's district they draw water from a place where they had no actual right of entry and where in order to get the water they had to obtain a Provisional Order to give the right of entry on the land where the well were situated. As the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. D. White) pointed out, the State has already vested in it the right to gold and silver, but I do not think the State has the right to enter on land and get it.

The State has the right to take any gold or silver mine.

That is the case here. My hon. Friend suggests that the petroleum ought to be vested in the State. I do not know whether he can find any advantage that the State can get by having petroleum formally vested in it that it does not get under this Bill. Under Clause 8 the Board of Trade have the power to license under any conditions they like, including monetary payment, or they can sell the licence subject to the payment of a royalty of 9d. per ton on the oil raised. The whole value of the oil, or the whole of the value of the right to get the oil, vests in the State, and the State can sell that to the licensee or can get it itself. I do not know what more power he suggests the State would have if the oil were formally vested in it.

I intended to challenge the royalty of 9d. to the owners of the land.

Oh, that is all! What my hon. Friend said conveyed the impression to my mind that he thought the State was getting something less than the value of the oil. The policy of this Bill has been—and I think it is a policy which the House has approved for all legislation during the War—to leave the status quo, as far as possible, unaffected, except where it is necessary to alter it for war purposes. That is a policy we have followed. That is a principle we are, at any rate, trying to follow. Petroleum is a liquid. There has been no legislation up to now dealing with a liquid of this character. It is perfectly obvious that if this liquid has to be got—and this is the whole answer to what has been pressed—that it should be got quickly; and if it is to be dealt with in an economical way, it must be dealt with under a single control, and no other single control is possible except State control. That is really the object of this Bill. To impose State control, to impose a single authority for this purpose, would appear to be desirable, so that when the boring for petroleum takes place, when the location of the boring and the methods pursued are decided upon, it should be done with the sole result of discovering how what appears to be petroliferous area should best be worked, how it can be worked under the natural conditions which exist in respect of that particular ground with a view of getting the best possible results from the expert and scientific information at our disposal.

If petroleum is in the hands of private owners, large or small, there will probably be a waste, as has occurred in America when borings have taken place, not simply with regard to getting the best results from the petroliferous area in question, but when each owner, or licensee, bored so as to get the best and quickest results from his own particular plot of land. The result has been that there has been competitive boring and competitive pumping, and this competitive pumping has resulted in an expenditure of a sum at least three times the sum necessary to extract the oil from certain oilfields in America. I have here a statement in a scientific paper read by the oil expert who advises the United States Government, showing that in many cases, in one particular field quoted in the paper, by competitive boring—by not stopping the oil in time, and so on—the amount of oil that has been lost was an amount that varied from 25 per cent. to 85 per cent. That loss is a thing which we wish to avoid. For that reason this Bill has been introduced to secure that the control should be in the hands of a single authority. When we come to the question of access to the oil what we desire to do is to maintain the status quo. The process is not differentiated from previous practice. This Bill is merely a Bill to enable the petroleum to be obtained under the Defence of the Realm Act, which gives power to the Government to enter upon land. There is one other point which I think my right hon. Friend did not mention, which I think is important, and turns upon the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite. The House will remember that it is not only the Defence of the Realm Act, but the Acquisition of Land Act which comes into question. We are able to enter upon land under the Defence of the Realm Act from which we desire to draw the petroleum, but then at the end of the War all that work would pass into the hands of the private owners, if we could not control it. Under the Acquisition of Land Act there will be full power, on behalf of the State, where any result has been, or is likely to be, obtained, to obtain the permanent ownership of the land on which the boring takes place, and also the surrounding land which appears to be petroliferous. This is really a more economical and better scheme than buying the land before you really know whether or not there is any petroleum beneath the surface. This matter, I think, has been thought out on businesslike lines. We have only interfered with those rights of the landowners with which it was necessary to interfere in the national interest. We have not interfered beyond that, nor given any ground for the statement that this Bill is a precedent for spoliation or for taking away the rights which belong to somebody else under the pretext of war legislation.

The retention of natural rights?

My hon. Friend would, I think, find it difficult to define what are natural right and natural production. That, however, is rather a wide subject upon which, I think, he would not wish me to enter at present. This Bill does not profess to deal with any abstract economic problems at all, neither in relation to land or any other question. It is a practical measure, with the last possible disturbance of the existing conditions, or ownership, to enable petroleum, if there, to be got. One other word in answer to the second question of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire as to what are the chances of getting oil. The only answer I can give him to that is that certain eminent geologists both in this country and who have come here from the United States, men of great experience, hold that these conditions exist in some parts of the United Kingdom and that the State is justified in experimenting by boring, and that it is worth while to spend money on exploration. It is impossible to exaggerate the value that finding oil at home in the United Kingdom would be to us in the present crisis; therefore it is more worth while for us to spend money now than it is likely to be at any other moment. Whether or not we shall find the oil I do not know, but what I do say to the House is that it is worth while to explore. All we ask the House to do is to give us any possible help hon. Members can in considering this Bill, because it is a new departure in legislation. I perhaps have had a larger share in considering the details of this Bill beforehand than anyone else. I know by experience that Bills that are passed through the House with little thought or discussion are apt to give trouble afterwards. I would far sooner have the criticism of this House now than afterwards, and I would ask hon. Members to put their minds to this Bill, criticise it, and let us have it go through the House after absolutely thought-out discussion, so that we may have no trouble and diffiuclty with it afterwards. Any suggestions will be welcomed by my right hon. Friend and myself. We shall do our best to consider, and, if necessary, to give effect to them. But time is everything. It is important to get all the stages of this Bill as quickly as possible, if we are to start off the matter at once without a day being lost.

Question, "That the Bill be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[ Mr. Pratt. ]

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "His Majesty" ["His Majesty may appoint a Committee of his Privy Council"], and to insert instead thereof the words "Either House of Parliament."

I have some other Amendments down for this Bill which, in my view, would greatly improve the Bill. I am not aware whether or not the Home Secretary, who is in charge of this Bill, is willing to consider them. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny that my Amendment would make the Bill a much stronger Bill. I know that there are difficulties, one of them being that this Bill originated, not here, but in another place. There are difficulties, again, in respect to measures of this sort. I should be glad if the Home Secretary can give an indication as to his attitude towards these Amendments. As to the first Amendment, which I am now moving, I should say that the scheme of the Bill is that His Majesty may appoint a Committee of the Privy Council. My proposal is that this House, or the other House, should appoint the Committee, if they be so pleased. This Bill reflects in Parliament the popular desire to take away from enemy princes and others their British titles. It is purely popular and democratic in its origin. Some of us, therefore, think that it ought to be Parliament that should take action to deprive these men of their titles Of course, I know that in a question like this you are up against the Royal prerogative. I am sure we all very gratefully recognise the attitude which a very high and dignified person has taken in regard to this Bill in allowing it to be put before Parliament in this way. At the same time, I think that the proposal I have in this first Amendment is quite a clear and practical one. If it be allowed that this Bill emanated in the popular and democratic desire that enemy aliens should not hold British titles, it should follow that the operations in connection with the Bill should be in the hands of Parliament.

In regard to the particular Amendment which has been moved. I think the hon. Gentleman will feel, if he looks into the matter, that his Amendment would be contrary to the scheme of the Bill. It is only right that any steps considered necessary in the consideration of the question of whether or not a peer should be deprived of his rank, should, at all events, be initiated by the Crown; therefore the scheme is that His Majesty should have the power to appoint a Committee to look into this matter before the first step is taken. Of course, the Committee would be appointed upon the advice of His Majesty's Ministers; the result would be that the control of Parliament over the whole matter would be fully preserved. The hon. Member courteously invited me to say what I think of the various other Amendments on the Paper. I need hardly say that some of them appear to me to be entirely arguable, and therefore it was justifiable to put them on the Paper; but I do not think any one of them is essential to the Bill, or necessitates, or need necessitate, the alteration of the Bill. I hope personally that the Committee will let the Bill, as it stands, go through.

That is a very reasonable answer given to what I think are a reasonable set of Amendments. I shall not press my Amendment. At the same time, I am sorry not to have had here the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Mr. Watt) who has given considerable attention to this Bill, and has put Amendments down, but is unable to be present. I beg therefore to withdraw my Amendment; I shall not trouble the Committee further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Successor to Petition for Restoration of Peerage.)

It shall be lawful for the successor of any peer whose name has been so removed, to present a petition to His Majesty praying to have the peerage restored and his name placed on the Peerage Roll; and His Majesty may refer such petition to a Com- mittee of the Privy Council constituted as aforesaid; and should the Committee be satisfied that such person has incurred no disability under this Act, and is well affected to His Majesty's Person and Government, His Majesty may thereupon direct that the peerage be restored and the name of the petitioner be placed on the Peerage Roll; whereupon all rights and privileges of the holder of the peerage shall revive and be in force as if the name of the peer had never been removed from the Roll.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) was very anxious that this Clause should be dropped out of the Bill. I do not think that this Clause is necessary at all. It is really some sort of excrescence on the Bill. We can take away the title and then afterwards, after the War, there is the chance given to a man for himself, or his successor, to attempt as here, ad infinitum —it may be 100 years hence—by legal process to get the title back again. That is a very undesirable process altogether. If the owner of the title has been deprived of his title after due and legal inquiry on oath, as will be the case, there ought to be no process of giving the title back to his successor or heir. It is quite an unnecessary Clause, and I am sure it may produce a great deal of litigation. It may mean raking up a lot of old stories, possibly hundreds of years old, and I should be very glad if the Home Secretary could omit this Clause.

The first Amendment on this Clause of which the hon. Gentleman has given notice is an Amendment to expand the Clause; now, apparently, he desires to have it dropped altogether. We do not propose to give this power of application for the restoration of a title to the man or to his heirs, but only to his actual successor. Of course, it may be that the successor of a peer who under this Bill may have been deprived of his title may have fought for this country or may be entitled to some consideration as to a seat in another place. At all events, the Clause is drawn so that the successor may have the power to apply for a restoration.

May I ask whether if the successor of one who has been deprived of his title should prove himself a worthy successor the proper course would not be to grant him a new title? Why should you restore a title which has been forfeited, and justly forfeited, by the gross treachery of the holder? It is not like a case where the offence may or may not be pardonable. To my mind this offence is absolutely inexcusable, and therefore the deprivation of the title should not rest on them only but on their successors. If their successors should prove themselves worthy of being restored to the title it should be for the Crown to do it by conferring a new title.

I should like to join in protesting against this second Clause. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher), and we have had quite enough experience during the past three years. It has been necessary and thought advisable to take strong steps, and I think at the present time we cannot take too strong steps to show to the whole of the world that as far as we are concerned we are not going to leave the door open to litigation, for others to come along and endeavour to redeem titles that have been given to those who had fought against us in this War. On the other hand, if it is necessary that titles should be conferred upon those people it is perfectly easy. There has been no difficulty heretofore, and I maintain there will be no difficulty hereafter. What I can see is that if there is a loophole left open now, these aliens may come in hereafter, and the feeling that we have now is that we are going to have none of this sort of thing in the future. Let us lay it down and be perfectly firm on this matter, and, so far as I am concerned, if my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) goes to a Division on this Clause, I shall support him. At all events, I hope the Home Secretary will give this his further consideration, and will see that it will be more satisfactory if hereafter there is any justifiable cause, perhaps after we have finished our work here, for these people to have titles, that the matter should be brought up on a clean slate and be done without any of this leaving doors open in matters in regard to which the will of the people at the present time is that they should be finished and done with.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 (Savings) and 4 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

I should like to ask the Home Secretary if he is in a position to give the undertaking which I think he indicated just now in the Committee stage, namely, that His Majesty's Ministers will advise his gracious Majesty to appoint some Committee. This Bill as we leave it, and as it will now become law in a minute or two, simply makes it permissive for His Majesty to appoint a Committee. Cannot we have an assurance that His Majesty's Ministers will advise his gracious Majesty to use the powers conferred upon him?

I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues with reference to the question the hon. Gentleman asks, and therefore I can only repeat for myself that I cannot conceive that the Government would take the trouble to pass this Bill through all its stages unless they intended to give the advice that it should be acted upon. I do not myself doubt that if a proper case is made out the advice will be given.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

I make no apology for raising the question I mentioned at Question Time to-day—that of the internment and release of Mrs. Besant and her companions. I make no apology, because I think the House of Commons is the right place in which to raise it. After all, we in this House are responsible, through the Secretary of State, and by him through the Viceroy, for the Government of that great Dependency, and if there is anything wrong and inconsistent with British ideas in chat Dependency we are the last Court of Appeal to which either Indians or Englishmen in that Dependency have the right to appeal. I deeply regret that the Government have not complied with my request to accord us slightly more than the hour to which we are entitled under our procedure. The points I desire to raise are as to whether Mrs. Besant was rightly interned, and I think the House will agree in a moment that she was; whether there was any reason to alter the decision then arrived at; and whether the release of Mrs. Besant by the right hon. Gentleman is likely to make for peace and quietness in India. I must trouble the House with certain extracts from writings by Mrs. Besant, and from a speech by the Viceroy, for I want the House to understand that she has during the last two or three years deliberately during the strain of this War made speeches and issued writings exceedingly detrimental to the peace and well being of India. Every other section in India, the moderate section particularly, have agreed unanimously to abstain from all political agitation of any kind, and to put on one side their desire for improvements, from their own point of view, in India in order that His Majesty's Government might get on with the War. That has been done by all sections, except by this lady and her particular friends. In 1916, when war was well under way, Mrs. Besant started a paper called "New India," and it is largely in consequence of her writings in that paper that I am speaking this afternoon. Her writings were so bad that the authorities compelled the paper to furnish a guarantee of Rs. 2,000 as to the nature of the contents, and last year the writings got so bad that the Rs. 2,000 were forfeited. Mrs. Besant appealed, and the case came before the Court of Appeal in Madras on the 27th. September and 18th October, 1916, when she questioned the legality of this action. This appeal was heard by three judges, two of whom were natives, and they unanimously came to the conclusion that Mrs. Besant had held the Government up to hatred and contempt, and that her articles had a tendency to disseminate disaffection throughout India.

That is the first point I want to make—that two native judges and one English judge came to the conclusion that she had held the Government up to hatred and contempt. In March of this year the Viceroy made an important speech in which he referred to Mrs. Besant's action and quoted from this paper. It is this speech of the Viceroy to which I want to call attention. He said: And this is the quotation made by the Viceroy:

Which Viceroy?

5.0 P. M.

Lord Chelmsford, the present Viceroy; it was in March of this year. He went on to say:

"Now hear, not what I think about it, but what one of the High Court judges has to say about this article."

This is what the judge said, and what was quoted by the Viceroy:

"'This seems to me most pernicious writing, and writing which must tend to encourage political assassination.'"

That is the view of the judge on Mrs. Besant's writings, quoted with approval by the Viceroy of India, so short a time ago as March of this year. The Viceroy then went on:

"What are these but stirring up hatred and contempt; do you suggest that language like this can have no ill effect?"

Then I want to quote one other statement of hers which I think even more extreme. Dealing with the murder of a policeman at Calcutta, these words were used:

"There was quiet and even courageous determination in the conduct of the assassins. They are idealists, though heroism may, according to some people, be too noble a word to apply to them. In consequence people are not even moved by a spirit of retributive justice towards them."

I wish to use the words of the Viceroy again, and to say that these are pernicious writings distinctly and definitely inciting to political assassinaton. I will not quote much more. Upon this decision Lord Pentland, who most of us knew in this House for many years and who was Governor of Madras, came to the conclusion that a stop must be put to Mrs. Besant's activities, and he, I think it is clear, with the assent of the Viceroy and with the assent of the late Secretary of State for India (Mr. Chamberlain), decided to take further action against her. He sent for her, and personally tried to dissuade her from carrying on this propaganda during the War, asking her for an undertaking not to do so. She declined, and then, with the assent of the Viceroy, he had her what was called interned. In fact, he gave her and her two companions the option of one of six places. She chose the Hill Station of Ootacamund, and there she lived, and would have been up to this moment, in complete freedom. They asked her then in this quasi-form of internment whether she would allow her writings in her paper to be censored by the Government censor during the War. She was offered her freedom to write, and she declined that. I want to point out that Lord Pentland's action, approved as it was by the Viceroy, was also approved by the whole of the English-speaking community in India. This was writing which certainly ought not to be tolerated during the War.

Has the hon. Member any ground for saying that this action was approved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham?

I said I thought that was the case. I know that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was in office and my hon. Friend raised the question, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham gave the strongest approval—certainly after the event.

When the hon. Gentleman refers to the Viceroy does he mean the Governor-General in Council and his colleagues?

I think that must be so, but of course we have not the whole of the papers. When we do get them we shall be in a better position to judge. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will give the House papers so that we may get the whole of the details. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham retired and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State came into office. He has answered a question to-day and I think his answer is perfectly clear. It is quite clear he did write or telegraph something to India very soon after he entered office, partly in view of his going to India and partly to ask the Viceroy and the Governor-General whether they would grant an amnesty to these particular prisoners. The exact words used by my right hon. Friend will appear in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, but I think I am not doing him an injustice when I say that although he did not order the release of Mrs. Besant, he permitted the idea of such a release to pass from this side to the Government of India. And that is borne out by a question asked in the Imperial Legislative Council of Simla on the 5th September by Mr. Jinnah, who is one of Mrs. Besant's warmest supporters. He asked:—

"In view of the recent announcement and also the proposed visit of Mr. Montagu and having regard to the feelings which have been aroused in this country by the internment of Mrs. Besant and her co-workers, do the Government of India propose to consider the question of their release?"

Sir William Vincent answered on behalf of the Government:

"The Government of India are prepared to recommend the Government at Madras to remove the restrictions placed upon Mrs. Besant and her companions—"

These words are important

"if the Government are satisfied that these persons will abstain from unconstitutional and violent methods of political agitation during the remainder of the War."

Everything depends on whether the Government is satisfied that they will abstain from unconstitutional and violent methods of agitation during the War. My right hon. Friend told us this afternoon that the Government had received undertakings from influential friends of Mrs. Besant that she would so abstain. But there has been no undertaking of any kind from this lady herself. On the contrary, Mrs. Besant has, since her release, been going about India stirring up agitation in India, and has openly stated that she has entered into no conditions whatever with regard to her release. That is my telegraphic information. The Indian papers, as my right hon. Friend knows, which have just been received, do not cover the 5th September, but next week no doubt we shall get full reports of what this lady has said with regard to her release. I think, however, it is quite clear she herself has given no undertaking whatever, and she has conducted what one may almost call a triumphant tour through India. It may be a consequence of her action that she has been elected by the votes of the extreme party of the National Congress to preside at the next Congress. Another former member of this House, Lord Willingdon, issued a similar order on his own responsibility in his presidency, but both the Madras and the Bombay Orders have had to be revoked by Order of the Government of India, in accordance with what I venture to suggest is very grave action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, action taken presumably in order that he may have a peaceful progress throughout India when he makes his visit to that country. I think that is a not unfair gloss to put upon his action and upon the statement he made this afternoon. But I think that it will have the reverse effect to that which he anticipates. The whole of Anglo-Indian opinion to-day is in a ferment, and I am sure that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman must have had telegraphic resolutions from nearly every Anglo-Indian body, such as the Madras Chamber of Commerce and the European Association in Calcutta, with its various branches, protesting strongly against the release of this lady and her companions during the present War. They are of opinion that the release will be disastrous to India. May I quote a few words from these messages?

"In view of the report appearing in the Press announcing that the Secretary of State has called for a full report of the Besant case, the Madras Chamber of Commerce views with grave concern and anxiety the suggested possibility of a reversal by the Secretary of State for India of the Order of the Madras Government interning Mrs. Besant and others. The Chamber warns His Majesty's Government of the serious consequences which may ensue at the present time from action tending to weaken the authority of the local Government, and they strongly hold the view that the local Government, which acted with great reluctance, must be permitted to decide whether present unconstitutional methods of agitation initiated and carried on by Mrs. Besant and others can be allowed to continue with due regard to public safety."

Other associations have passed similar resolutions. I would like further to call attention to a letter sent to the Press of India by a native gentleman embodying a manifesto on this very matter. Speaking from the point of view of a loyal Indian, the Rajah of Kurupam says:

"The persistent attacks on the bureaucracy grew in violence day by day and feelings against it were systematically flouted. Bad blood was being created between communities, and the Government of the country had been brought into hatred and contempt. A large section of the Indians that disapproved of the campaign could only look on helplessly. The situation became grave and intolerable. The authorities could not help interfering. They warned those who were responsible for the new movement, but the warning only redoubled the attack and aggravated the poignancy of the agitation. Misleading cries were raised and misrepresentation of the Government's attitude towards the political movements in the country were sedulously disseminated. The leader of the Home Rulers, with two of her associates, were interned, as they would accept no other alternative."

I want next to refer to statements made in this House by the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for West Birmingham when he was in office as Secretary of State for India. A question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) with regard to this matter, and in reply Mr. Chamberlain said:

"The Madras Government have prohibited Mrs. Annie Besant from publishing and from speaking in public, and have required her to take up her residence within any one of six specified areas."

In reply to a further question by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said:

"The Madras Government took action on their own responsibility and within the powers and duties which we conferred upon them."

My hon. Friend further pressed his point, and elicited a still stronger answer, as the right hon. Gentleman said:

"Mrs. Besant has been engaged in dangerous political agitation which might become highly dangerous and even disastrous in India."

And then the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Snowden) put a further question, to which the reply was:

"Mrs. Besant has taken part in an agitation and has pursued that agitation by means which in the opinion of the authorities in India and in my opinion are dangerous to the peace of British India."

In face of that statement made by a very responsible Minister in this country we find two months later when a change is made—and some of us think a very deplorable change—in the Secretaryship for India and my right hon. Friend opposite comes into power, very different action is taken. I do not want to go back on the Home Rule speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, although they contain much from which I entirely differ, but they are sure to be quoted against him. It is very regrettable, I think, that while the voice of his predecessor is still hot in the ears of the public he should suggest that this lady who has been guilty of dangerous agitation should be released. It is exceedingly to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken that course. He is going out to India as a missionary of peace and goodwill. He is responsible for the Government not only of the extremists in India, but also of the loyal Indians—the extremists number from 5,000 to 10,000 at the outside, while the whole population totals fully 300,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Government of all these people, loyal as well as disloyal. He is also responsible for the well being of the Anglo-Indian community which has done so much to make India what she is at the present time. The Anglo-Indian community is steadily opposed to the Home Rule movement which is causing quite a ferment there.

Has my hon. Friend read the "Pioneer," the especial organ of that community on the subject?

There appears in the "Times" to-day a resolution from India with regard to this very matter indicating that Anglo-Indian opinion throughout all the great Chambers of Commerce and the European Association is entirely opposed to the action of my right hon. Friend. What I am asking my right hon. Friend to do is to make a statement here before he goes to India that he will assuage as far as he can the ferment which has undoubtedly arisen in the Anglo-Indian community by assuring us that he is not going to India to express any such ideas as Home Rule for India, and that he will show that he has no sympathy with Mrs. Besant or with the extremist agitation or with any idea of Home Rule for India, at all events during this War. I think I am entitled to ask in this House for such an assurance, and I regret I have had to be so hurried in putting my case before the House.

The advanced party in India has never looked upon me as a very warm supporter, and, judging from the comments in the native Press, of which I am a careful reader, they do not regard me in that light even down to this day. I confess I do not know what good and I do feel that much harm may result from the speech which my hon. Friend has made. What, after all, is it he wants? It is no use our having merely a vain discussion. Does he want the Government of India to cancel the order for the release of this lady and her companions and to shut them up again even if they have not further offended? Does he want that? If he does not, what is to be the practical outcome of this discussion? I disapprove of Mrs. Besant as heartily as my hon. Friend. I wish she could have been induced to leave India altogether. I think it would have been to the advantage of India. But there are many other political associations established in India, and you cannot keep a large portion of those who are in the forefront of political agitation permanently shut up. My hon. Friends will do me the justice to say that I never was an advanced reformer, but whenever the question of deportation or internments has been brought forward the great object of most of those concerned has been to get the prisoners released as soon as possible, because they are more dangerous and more troublesome in confinement than they are outside. Mrs. Besant was released, not as my hon. Friend says, upon any undertaking that she would not so act again. There is no provision under the Defence of the Realm Act for taking security and binding Mrs. Besant or anybody else to keep the peace and not take a certain action. The Government of India, under the Act, had to be satisfied that the persons concerned would abstain from unconstitutional and violent methods of political agitation during the War. They may have been wrong in thinking that Mrs. Besant and her associates would do that, but I do feel that Lord Chelmsford should, as far as possible, be supported by this House.

My hon. Friend no doubt was right in saying what is the general feeling of Anglo-India on this point, but there is room in this particular case for a difference of opinion, which is illustrated by my rising to make these few remarks, and is also evidenced in a much stronger manner by the very paper which is a by-word of Anglo-Indian officialism in India, namely, the "Pioneer." My hon. Friend said he had not had his last post from India. This is dated 8th September, and it is a leading article in the "Pioneer." That means almost everything. It is the whole head and front of Anglo-Indian opinion. It said:—

Will my hon. Friend read the first words of the article?

I think, if my hon. Friend will excuse me, I will not. The House has been so indulgent as to allow me to, read a portion of a newspaper, and but for the very exceptional circumstances I would not have ventured to do that. I have read the words, and they are not at variance with the context. Nobody who knows anything about India will fail to appreciate their extreme significance. Then there is another point which is all-important. Part of the gravamen of this complaint is that it is asserted that the Government of India, an independent administration, overrode the Government of Madras, an independent administration. That is not the position. The Government of Madras is a subordinate administration. Mrs. Besant, as is well known, was interned after communication with the Government of India. No local Government in India would dare to intern under these circumstances without first obtaining the sanction of the Governor-General in Council. I do not say officially, but unofficially they did, and it has been fairly stated that that was done. The Government of India was responsible to this House, and not the Government of Madras, for the original internment. The Government of India is responsible for the release. Lord Chelmsford has most expressly, publicly and fully shouldered that responsibility, and there are some of the strongest opponents of the advanced party in India, like the "Pioneer" and myself, who think that Lord Chelmsford in this matter had probably good reason for what he did, and should be supported. In a letter to the "Times" Lord Sydenham unintentionally misrepresented the situation. He was Governor of Bombay, and, like everyone else, is inclined to magnify his own office.

I presume the position to be this. I take it the Governor-General of India in Council considered that some eirenicon was necessary as this new policy was announced. It was announced and decided upon that it should have a fair chance, and if you have got the whole of the Congress Party—let me say they are not my Party—in a state of ferment protesting against the internment of this lady, of whom, of course, they have made an absolute idol since she was interned—if that is going on, there is really no fair opportunity for the new departure. I am an old Civil servant, and I say I like the old lines best; but if we are to have a new departure, a man of sense, who is fit to take part in politics in these stirring times, when everything is in the melting pot, must be prepared to revise his outlook to some extent, and I think he may go to the extent of supporting the present Viceroy of India, whose total action in India seems to me to be most reasonable, most moderate, and most statesmanlike—a great contrast, I think, to some of his predecessors. I myself would support him with all my might, and I do think that if the House is not to give a chance to this present departure, if it were to accentuate the very great difficulties which the Secretary of State will have going out to India to discuss these questions, if we are not to endeavour to produce what, I think, Lord Chelmsford himself called "a calm atmosphere," what possible chance can they have?

Is it statesmanlike of us, whatever our individual views may be, to endeavour to put a spoke in the wheel of this all-important experiment? If Mrs. Besant and her friends again misconduct themselves, as they most assuredly did misconduct themselves previously, the Governor-General in Council can move the Government of Madras, or the Government of Madras, with the permission of the Governor-General in Council, can again intern them. I hope they will not, but until that happens, what earthly use can result from my hon. Friend raising this matter to-night? He wound up by fulminating against the Government of India, and there is no proof at all that they did not act on their own motion. My hon. Friend pays a very ill compliment to my right hon. Friend by thinking that they are moved hither and thither as the Secretary of State desires. He ended his speech by asking the Secretary of State to make a statement. He has made two statements. The facts in this case are in the smallest possible compass. There is very little to be said about it, and in order that I shall take no more time I will resume my seat.

I have very little to say on this matter, because, as my hon. Friend says, he has not had an opportunity of reading the answer I gave this afternoon, and I think he will find it contains a very complete account of the circumstances. Of course there are many people who have in their minds, or had in their minds, a Debate in the House of Commons on this subject, in which I had to stand up and defend my action for having, from Whitehall, imposed my will upon the Government of India, and interfered with their accepted and recognised responsibility. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for me, those are not the facts of the case, and therefore there is very little for me to defend or to justify. My hon. Friend began his speech With an account of the circumstances which led up to the internment of Mrs. Besant. I need not say anything about those, because they are not in dispute. I say again, the action of the Government of Madras was approved by the Government of India, approved and defended in this House by my predecessor, and it never fell to my lot to question it—I had no reason to concern myself with it. My hon. Friend has got hold of the rumour—if I may use that expression—that on reaching office I called for a report from the Government of Madras. There is a certain element of truth about that matter, but it has been deduced from that, that I wanted to review their decision. It was not for that purpose at all.

I was quoting your message.

But you quoted a telegram from the Madras Chamber of Commerce about which I called for a report. When my predecessor was in office my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) from the Bench opposite asked my predecessor if he would lay Papers about Mrs. Besant before the House of Commons. My predecessor said he would consider the matter. When I entered office it was necessary for me to consider carrying out the consideration which he had undertaken. The Papers were not complete. With a view to laying those Papers—and only for that purpose—to help me in defence, if defence were necessary, I asked for complete Papers, and that is the whole of that. But when the announcement on 20th August was made, which in my view made a new situation, I suggested to the Viceroy, not that he should release Mrs. Besant, but that he should consider the release of all people who had been dealt with for unconstitutional agitation in connection with reforms.

Has anyone else been released?

They announced in the same Debate on the 5th September that they were prepared to consider on their merits other cases, and questions were asked them about the very people mentioned this afternoon. I do not know whether in course of time there will be others or not; but does my hon. Friend suggest that it is wrong for a Secretary of State, who receives—by many telegrams and letters, even by suggestions in this House—suggestions that an amnesty—"amnesty" is a bad word—the relaxation of those restrictions might be considered—is it suggested that it is wrong that I should convey that suggestion to the Viceroy? He acted as a statesman of Lord Chelmsford's courage and firmness would act with his Government, and entirely on his own responsibility. The situation was this: A large amount of agitation had been going on in India because there was a demand for an announcement of policy. An announcement of policy was not forthcoming. My hon. Friend knows, and the House knows, that the Government of India had been pressing for an announcement of policy for some months. An announcement is made—an announcement with which we were all in complete accord. The Government of India thinks that the consequences of that announcement will be that there will be a cessation of that agitation, and that everybody concerned will lay their heads together to work out the policy which results from that announcement, and therefore a new situation occurs. There is no question of reversing former policy, but a question of seeing whether the new circumstances will allow a relaxation of restrictions. The justification for that wholly depends on whether the people who are freed from restriction do not offend again. The justification depends on whether they have assurances or not which lead them to believe they will not offend. The Government of India told the Legislative Council and authorised me to tell the House that they have received such assurances. My hon. Friend says he has evidence of a recrudescence of those practices. I have not. Surely my hon. Friend does not suggest to me that I should tell the Government of India that I question whether the assurances are satisfactory! They must be the judges of that, and every evidence that I have on the matter shows that the announcement of policy which was concerted between the Cabinet here and the Government of India has had that tranquilising effect, and evidence shows that Mrs. Besant and her friends, who present a portion of the problem, but only a portion of the problem, are willing to co-operate in the discussions, and deliberations which arise. Therefore, by her release you have assured the cessation of those practices. This was done by the Government of India, and if it is not impertinent for me to say so, I think that they acted in a wise and statesmanlike manner on the question of the relaxation of those restrictions.

The only thing which I need to add is in regard to the two appeals which the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has made. The first he made is on behalf of the Anglo-Indian community. The Viceroy has already stated, and he and I are acting all the way together, that the views of the Anglo-Indian community will, of course, be considered during the coming consideration of the whole problem. It would be monstrous if they were not, for after all they have played an enormous part in building up the material prosperity of India. As regards the question he asked as to Home Rule and policy, that is what we are going to discuss in India. I am not going to make any further pronouncement at all upon it, and I am sure my hon. Friend would not press me to go beyond the announcement I made on the 20th August. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government and the policy of the Viceroy and his Government. The steps that are going to be laid before Parliament for carrying it out will result from our deliberations in India. If the hon. Member will refresh his memory by reading that announcement over again he will see that many of the dangers which he anticipates are safeguarded by the very words of that carefully drawn-up pronouncement of policy, and all we ask is—I am not talking about people who are actively disloyal—that all those people who in different ways and directions are anxious for the well-ordered progress of India towards the end which is declared in that pronouncement will proceed together to a discussion of this matter, eventually in full publicity, in order that we may lay firm the foundations of that future and uninterrupted progress, and get out of the way the agitation which has been aroused in other circumstances by the action of the Government of India. That seems to me to be a step which no one in the House has a right to quarrel with.

I have not heard the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, but I would like to ask what view his predecessor took on the question of the release of Mrs. Besant?

That question had not arisen. Mrs. Besant was interned because she conducted a particular agitation and advocated in a particular way her policy during the time that there was no alternative policy in the field. There is an alternative policy in the field now, and it is the policy of the Government, of which I have the honour and privilege of being the spokesman. It is well known that that policy up to its last stages was partly the work not only of the Government of India, but of my predecessor in office. That policy was ultimately announced two or three weeks after his unfortunate resignation. When that policy was announced the Government of India reviewed the situation under new circumstances. They did not go back on what had been previously done. They had a knowledge of the whole circumstances, and they asked themselves, "Are we justified in the relaxation of these restrictions, because we now believe that the evils will not return again?" Upon that subject, much to my regret, my predecessor had no opportunity of expressing his opinion.

I differ entirely from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in speaking of Mrs. Besant and the alternative policy. I consider that she is a person who has created sedition from one end of India to the other. She has been haled up in the High Court for her publications in India, where the Chief Justice himself said that he was unable to hold that the extracts quoted before him might not be the means of disseminating disaffection and hatred amongst many of His Majesty's subjects. Her conduct has been condemned by the Indian judges, and what the right hon. Gentleman describes as alternative policy is one of absolute treason to this country.

It is Home Rule, and that is not treason, but freedom.

The hon. Member for Nottingham said that the spirit of treason was more harmless out of confinement than in it, but I disagree with that argument entirely. In my experience in India, when I had any treason-mongers in confinement I took good care not to let them out until I knew they were harmless. I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking of this alternative policy when the policy which Mrs. Besant is preaching has set the whole of India in a blaze. I am old enough to remember what happened when we had to deal with the agitation in Lord Ripon's time on the Ilbert Bill, and that agitation will be nothing compared with the agitation of these days. The whole of India has been set ablaze by the action taken in regard to the release of Mrs. Besant and her associates. I wish to join with what has been said by the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment in asking for Papers. We do not know the actual facts. I have not yet realised whether the right hon. Gentleman ordered the release of Mrs. Besant or whether it was the Viceroy who ordered her release; nor do I know whether the Viceroy ordered her release after consultation with his council or with their approval or whether the matter was ever submitted to the Council of India at home.

The Secretary of State for India has just asked was he wrong in making a suggestion to the Viceroy for the release of all people connected with agitation in India. We can only look back to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who stated that he saw no reason to intervene further in this matter, in which, he stated, the Madras Government was exercising the powers vested in them by law. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor refused to make any suggestion. What has now been done has been opposed by all the provincial governors in India, and how are you going to govern India if all their authority is to be set at naught? The governors of the provinces are responsible, and I understand that they all agree as to the mischief which has been worked in India by Mrs. Besant. The Viceroy, I believe, has stated that he has received assurances that there will be no further agitation. The hon. Member for Nottingham quoted the "Pioneer," and I have here an extract describing the meeting in Calcutta and the assurance to the Government that the conveners would do their best to see that the meeting was conducted on reasonable lines. It goes on to say "many people will wonder after reading the unjust and offensive references to Lord Pentland and Sir Michael O'Dwyer how far that assurance was carried out." That shows the value of the assurances which the Viceroy seems to have been receiving in India. I need not go further into this case, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to uphold the rights and the status of the governors of the provinces of India. They are all agreed in regard to the necessity of restricting the movements of Mrs. Besant. In my opinion if any mistake was made by the Government of Madras it was that they did not deport Mrs. Besant and her friends straight away. We know that she is now going through a sort of triumphant procession and I can only hope that if any further violent speeches are made the Government will decide to deport her and her friends forthwith.

We do indeed live in revolutionary times when we hear such a speech as that which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Nottingham. I think we may all take a just measure of the support which the "Madras Mail" has given to the ascendancy party in India. The agitation which has been organised more or less by the "Madras Mail" has petered out somewhat when as a result of this Debate we find such extreme people advocating the cause of the ascendancy party. I do not know what the hon. Member for Brentford hopes to achieve by denouncing everybody who advocates Home Rule as disloyal. He says that the vast majority of the people in India are satisfied. All I can say is that if you are going to brand everyone who is advocating Home Rule for India you will have to brand the greater part of the inhabitants of the British Empire. Those people in India would be far more disloyal to the traditions of Great Britain if they did not advocate Home Rule for their own country. Personally I am glad that the Government has released Mrs. Besant, and I hope she will continue her Home Rule agitation in India, because you cannot grant Home Rule to any people without benefiting not only those people but the British Empire. Our traditions are based on freedom, and one of the most remarkable examples of the confidence and reliance we may place on our freedom is to be found in the case of South Africa. The people of South Africa during this crisis have been with us because we trusted them, and so long a as we carry out those doctrines in our dependencies as they become qualified for self-government we must give them Home Rule. So loner as we carry on that policy the British Empire is safe, and, far more than that, the traditions upon which the British Empire stands will also be safe. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is going to India to see for himself what measure of self-government can possibly be applied to India at the present time, not to snuff out those who seek to be free, but to encourage them to go on and seek the freedom under which life will be worth living.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has taken up an issue that is not before us. There is no question that anybody in India may discuss forms of government, Home Rule, or anything else. It is just as it was said when Sir Charles Dilke was speaking in favour of Republicanism. It is reasonable enough so long as it is treated as a theoretical discussion of the best forms of government. The law has been put into action in this case for a different thing altogether. It has been put into action for incitements to sedition and for bringing the Government of India, the whole authority for keeping the peace, into contempt. That is a different thing altogether, and a very much more serious matter. I am not going over all the ground that has been taken by my colleagues in this House who are particularly interested in bringing long experience of India and its administration to bear upon a particular case like this, but I am very glad that the matter has been brought up on the floor of the House to-day, because it is quite evident that the Anglo-Indian communities in India and some of the natives in high positions have thought that the action taken in revoking the Order passed by the Governor of Madras in Council was to facilitate the great change that is to be made before long with the consent of this House in the Government of India. It is a serious matter that there should be any such feeling abroad among the British or the natives in India, or that seditious utterances should be tolerated, or that people using those utterances with the intent that has been found to have existed in this case should receive any kind of partial treatment. It is known to most of us who have served long in India, or who have the traditions of Indian history before us, that campaigns of that sort stirring up sedition are extremely dangerous for the small garrison that you may say constitutes the British in India. In 1857, at the time of the Indian Mutiny, it was found that sort of writing and communication preceded the desperate acts made to overthrow the Government altogether. Therefore, I feel that at a time like the present the authorities ought to be particularly careful in punishing by law people who act in the manner found to have existed in this case.

The whole of the communities, native as well as British, in India have a deep respect for the administration of the law and for the functions of the High Courts. It is not necessary to say whether the judges were native or British judges. They were judges who look at matters of law and justice in the most impartial way, and I do not wonder that the British community should feel alarmed when there is interference in a particular case of criminal jurisdiction. As a rule, the Governor of India does not interfere at all, even when sentence of death has been passed. The Governor of Bombay or of Madras or of Bengal may alter a sentence or revoke it, but as a matter of fact the Governor-General in Council will hardly look at these cases. I will not say that he would not be more interested in looking at political cases where there is no such great moral guilt, but as a rule he refrains from interference, and he keeps up the reign, the power, and the useful prestige of Governors of Presidencies with their Councils in a way no other means could. Great respect is paid to the judgment of these impartial High Courts. The alteration that has been made in these Orders is a serious matter; and I do not in the least wonder at the various communities having public meetings to discuss it, and in some cases protesting against it. On the other hand, as one hon. Member has pointed out, the decision to release Mrs. Besant has been come to, and it would be difficult to pass any other Order, especially as the Secretary for State is going forth to India on a very great mission, and as the Governor-General in Council no doubt has passed the Order revoking it. It would have been very much better if it had been left to the Governor of Madras to exercise his own powers in this matter; but when it comes to the question whether one should censure the Governor-General of India for a matter like this, which is within his very high superintending powers, especially when he is backed up by another great responsible officer, the Secretary of State for India, I would think once, twice, and thrice before I would do it.

It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February.

Adjourned at Seven minutes before Six o'clock.