And so amendment was promised of a measure which would have had very awkward and unjust effects. It may be argued that it would only have affected people who had done, during the war, what they were asked not to do, namely, make issues without Treasury sanction. If the old Committee had been a reasonable and expeditious body this argument would have had great weight. But, in view of its caprices and dilatoriness, there was a good deal of excuse for those who decided to do without Treasury sanction and take the consequence of being unable to market their securities on the Stock Exchange. To propose to add a new penalty and cause the cancelling of all the financial arrangements made in connexion with such issues during four years was simply piling blunder on blunder. Luckily, the protests of the Government's own supporters sufficed to undo the worst of the mischief; but the whole affair is only another argument in favour of the earliest possible ridding of finance and industry from control that is so clumsily exercised. XX MONEY OR GOODS?[1] _December_, 1918 [Footnote 1: This was the latter of two articles contributed to the _Times Trade Supplement_ in answer to a series in which Mr Arthur Kitson had attacked our banking and currency system suggested an inconvertible paper currency.] "Boundless Wealth"--Money and the Volume of Trade--The Quantity Theory--The Gold Standard--How is the Volume of Paper to be regulated?--Mr Kitson's Ideal. In the November _Trade Supplement_ an endeavour was made to answer Mr Kitson's rather vague and general insinuations and charges against our bankers concerning the manner in which they do their business. Now let us examine the larger and more interesting problem raised by his criticism of our currency system.