Ev£B since the present Government carno into office it has been persistently dinned into our ears that a great loan policy was imminent. Every session lias falsified that prediction utterly. Nevertheless, every recess sees the prediction repeated, of course with variations according to circumstances Thu Premier, whether it was Mr Ballanco or Mr Sodden, has always been represented as much perplexed about his fragile tenure of power, growing gradually and surely more precarious. Ministers are always re presented as throwing out “ feelers/' they are divided on the ground that they have found that the country has not responded, and their speedy downfall is predicted. But there they are nevertheless. The most curious part of the business is that the very organs which de clare that this country never re sponds are always trying to make the country believe that a big loan is the very thing necessary, and just, nnd proper and profitable. The Post has cf’ten taken pains to point out that it is not against a loan policy at all, but that its sole contention is that the present Ministers are not the proper men to be entrusted with the ex penditure. Nevertheless, their discovery that the supposed “ feelers ’’ do not draw the public is a condemnation of their own efforts. The Government has never thrown out any feelers at all, either in Air Bai lance’s time or in Mr Seddon’s. The Op position press has “ barracked ’’ for a loan, and has failed. It is all very well to de clare that the Government has offered a loan policy and been snubbed. The party snubbed is the Opposition press, which lias “ barracked " for a loan, not the Govern ment which has never had the remotest intention of proposing such a thing. Un deterred by these failures, the Opposition press keeps on proposing a loan, and con tinues to lay the blame of their failure on the Government shoulders. The latest in stance is founded on the speech of Mr Cad.nan at the Thames banquet. Mr Cadman spoke about the question of a loan, as ho had a perfect right do. The subject is not “ tapu ” to a Minister any more than to any private member. 