I am somewhat astonished at the number of Amendments that we are asked to consider at this stage of the passage of the Bill. It seems to me to be most unfair, on a Bill which was guillotined day after day, and the Amendments on which, put forward by the Opposition, were not given due consideration, that, in addition, we should at this stage be inundated with Amendments from another place, and that on a Friday morning we are faced with most important changes bringing new principles into the Bill itself. As one illustration of a new principle, I will take the question of unworked minerals. Under Scottish law—I have raised this matter before in the House, and no one has ever been able to combat my statement—there is not, and never has been, any arrangement in Scotland under which a royalty was paid otherwise than on the basis of the number of tons of coal produced. New we are asked to recognise a right to payment on that which is not produced. That upsets the whole question so far as regards the basis of payment of royalties in the past.

The rates called royalties on minerals have always been applied to that which is produced. I challenge any legal authority on the Government Benches to give a single instance where a royalty has ever been recognised on any other basis than that of the produced tons of coal. I am reminded here of wayleaves, but they are quite different from the royalties on coal raised. The wayleave is an addition to the rates called royalties. The wayleave is that which is paid to another landowner when coal is being passed through or under his land, and it is quite different from a royalty. [Interruption.] In dealing with Scottish law in relation to rating, and especially with that rate which is called a royalty, you have to be quite clear as to what you are talking about, because you can be confused by the wayleave, even in many specifications which I have read in regard to opening and working new seams from a shaft situated in an area other than that from which the coal is to be obtained. This is where the average layman finds it difficult quite to grasp what is meant by the introduction of this Amendment.

There is nothing in Scots law to align this proposal with the existing law, and, therefore, it means a change of principle altogether. The Secretary of State said that, in order that there might be a greater sense of justice in regard to the de-rating provisions, it was necessary to take into view everything concerned with what was called productive industry; but a change such as this in what has been the law for all time, so far as Scotland is concerned, in relation to royalties, is something which I think the House of Commons should resent, especially at this last stage of the Bill. Had there been clear thinking on the other side, this, if it be the problem stated by the Secretary of State, ought to have been foreseen, and the change ought to have been asked for in the first presentation of the Bill, so that we might possibly have had some time for discussing it. Here, however, we are brought by this Amendment to a position in which we cannot even have enlightenment, but can only vote, and that is not enough so far as the Scottish people are concerned.Their rights and interests are being seriously tampered with, and, if this goes through, it will establish a very rotten precedent—I can use no other word to describe it. This change from the recognised law of Scotland by a simple Amendment from another place is too much to ask so far as the rights of the House of Commons are concerned.

I notice that the Amendment itself, apart from what relates to the Title, relates to minerals which are let, notwithstanding that they are not being worked at the time. Does that mean that we are going to give a right to a money payment on something that may never be worked? We have always to view the possibility that, while an arrangement may be made to pay a sum of money on that which is worked, there may on the other hand be something which may never be worked. We have collieries situated in such places that, if some scientific methods with which I am acquainted are carried out, certain areas of minerals will never be worked, and yet it is now proposed to include them in the whole. It would seem that this provision with regard to minerals which are let notwithstanding that they are not being worked at the time is putting something into futurity. I would not mind that so much if there were a guarantee anywhere, but there is no guarantee as to the minerals which are said to be proved. Anyone with practical knowledge knows that, although engineers bore, as I have- done myself, in certain areas to prove coal, and may find, when they get the shaft down and begin to open up workings, that they show a clear, clean class of coal, yet, when you begin to work, you may come up against faults, as they are called in England, or lights, as they are called in the Scottish mining areas. One of these disturbances may throw all the coal from one level to 20 feet below or above it, and there are cases such as that where the expense of driving inclines up or down would be such that the colliery owner could not face it; and yet he is now, under this Amendment, being promised payment on coal that he may never hope to get.

The whole idea underlying this is payment upon something that has not materialised, and I still challenge the Government, or any Member of the House, to show any instance where a royalty payment has been made otherwise than on the basis of the tons of coal produced. There has never been a royalty on the basis of the number of tons said to be contained in a certain area. That alone is a sufficient ground for the House of Commons, if it is going to show a sense of justice to the Scottish people and a sense of justice to itself as a so-called democratic body, preventing the passing of these words from another place, where someone is seeking, evidently from personal interest—I can think of nothing else that would bring this into being—to prescribe right into the future payments upon certain things that may never be, and to claim that rights from rates on things which are being produced shall apply to things which may never be produced. It seems to me an outrageous proposal altogether, and I hope the Secretary of State will see his way to withdraw, so far as that part is concerned.

Regarding the question of the salmon, we are not quite clear what is meant by the term "commercial." I know a number of people have what they call sporting rights in areas where the salmon are very good. I have had some of them, not in a commercial way. I look upon them as the right of all the people in the world. When a man who has sporting rights invites a number of his friends for a day's fishing, the whole of the catch may be sent to London and other places to their friends, and therefore it may be argued that it is not a commercial transaction, but we have other places where friends are not invited, and the salmon are sold. What machinery have the Government provided to deal with that class of sportsman? I have heard of those who are able to pay the whole of their household expenses out of what they call a private sports ground. I am sorry we have not the late Lord Advocate with us to-day, because I depend on him as far as points of Scots law are concerned.

The Secretary of State spoke of the modern meaning of the word "cruive," but we want to know the legal sense. It is one of the few Doric words. It has in practice three very definite meanings, apart from law. Originally, it was a hobble. Then it became a pen for live-stock. The third meaning is a pitcher garden enclosure. That meant that in the days before they had enclosures you could have your garden just where you wanted it, because the land belonged to the community. When it came to enclosure, the legal meaning had to be changed. I should like to know what is the exact interpretation of the word now. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell us what it means, but when it comes to a contest in the law courts the legal minds will interpret it. I should like to have some information as to what it really is. I do not accept the definition of the Secretary of State so far as its inclusion in the Act is concerned. Again, I protest against the number of Amendments that are brought forward. I challenge anyone to show that royalty has ever been paid except on the production of a ton of coal. I repeat that to introduce a new principle into Scottish law by this method from the other place without the Commons having discussed it is too much for this House to take upon itself to do.