of the Bank of England. I have not heard anyone suggest that that institution, which controlled the whole of the financial manipulations of this country, ought not to be in the hands of public ownership. That was the first thing that was done. Why was that? That was really a nominal operation. Up to that point, and particularly during the war, the Bank and the finances of the Bank had come under the control of the Government. So the argument cannot be made against the nationalisation of the Bank of England. The next Measure of nationalisation was that of the coal mines. Is there anybody -- I do ask this of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, who I suppose, claims that he is a Liberal -- is there any radical, progressive-minded person who believes that it was possible to do anything 242 with the mines but nationalise them? Yes, there were other proposals. But the hon, and learned Member should pay attention to the rest of my speech, since he is quoting it so much. I guarded myself on this very question of the time to judge the results, by saying that even on the visible technique we see that the thing is wrong. Consider the National Coal Board. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman pretend that the present structure of the Coal Board is even remotely right, or that anybody understands how to work the thing? All I can say in reply to the hon. Gentleman, who has