ABSTRACT
§ 1. English economists as a body have had surprisingly little to say concerning the principles of public expenditure. As an American critic observes, “ the older English writers did not need a theory of expenditures, because the theory of government which they held implied a fixed limit to governmental functions.” 118 Typical of such writers is Sir H. Parnell, an early nineteenth century pundit, who maintained that “ every particle of expenditure beyond what necessity absolutely requires for the preservation of social order and for protection against foreign attack is waste and an unjust and oppressive imposition on the public.” 119 On this pronouncement the comment has been made that, if so, we must give up growing crocuses in the public parks, unless it can be proved that they preserve social order, for they are certainly no protection against foreign attack. This barren and negative view of the proper economic activities of the State still finds some support. It is still true that, in some influential circles, “ the dull and drab extravagance of private living is accompanied by a severe scrutiny of any kind of public expenditure,” 120 and that “ publiceegestas, privatim opulentia ” is not much less apt a motto for modern Britain than for ancient Rome. Modern economists, especially in this country, have been slow to correct vulgar prejudices on this matter and to place the whole question, from the point of view of principles, upon a proper footing.
