This is either nonsense, and mischievous nonsense, or else it
means that the Liberal Party are advised by their typical representative to abandon the policy of maintaining free exchange and free contract wherever possible, and to enter upon the futile and dangerous task of attempting to encourage trade by Gtierernment action, —i.e., the protection of commerce and industry. Translated into action, this means bounties for industry, either through uneconomic railway rates, such as Mr. Lloyd George is always feeling after, or else by some other equally undesirable instrument. Bounty-fed industries are always demoralised industries, and we are not sure that we would not as soon see Free-trade abandoned for a tariff as Free-trade abandoned for a system of 'encouragement by Government action.' The one is quite as likely to enervate and to corrupt as the other. No doubt we shall be told that Sir John Brunner could not have meant bounties in any shape
or form. If that is so, what in the name of common-sense did he mean ? Can it be seriously suggested that he wished to assert that his colleagues in the trading world want Government interference pure and simple, and Board of Trade inspectors worrying them all the day long, but without bring- ing any pecuniary assistance? Of course he meant nothing of the kind. What he was hinting at was getting something out of the Government for the trader. But that something will have to be found by the general taxpayer,—that is, the consumer. So here we are back again at the old mad paradox : "Take care of the producer and the consumer will take care of himself."
