Lowell points out, the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
the Cabinet was one of almost commanding influence. In Mr. Gladstone's
time his powerful personality, regularly exercised in favour of national
economy, did certainly have a great effect in preventing extravagance,
and some other Chancellors of the Exchequer no doubt used an influence
in that direction, but can it be safely asserted that there is in the
Cabinet as a whole sufficient attention given to retrenchment?

(4) Lastly, the House of Commons is supposed to control expenditure.
That control has generally been used, and quite rightly, as a means of
calling attention to grievances, and as giving an opportunity for
criticism of the executive; but the House of Commons should also put
pressure on the executive to curtail expenditure, not so much by
discussing small details which would be far better dealt with by such a
small Estimates Examination Committee as suggested, but by using its
influence generally against an increase of expenditure unless a clear
case for it is made out. During the War, Parliamentary control, at least
until the appointment of the Committee above mentioned, seems almost to
have gone. The House of Commons does not now exercise its influence as
it ought, to check extravagance, and probably the more widely the
electorate is extended, as already said, the less will the House of
Commons care to exercise rigid control in favour of economy. It is
always an easy way of getting popularity to be what is called "generous"
when dealing with other people's money. Everyone who looks after the
public interest by trying to prevent expenditure, whether national or
local, which is not imperatively called for, is styled mean and
narrow-minded, and his task is a thankless one. Everyone who wants money
spent will be able to make out a plausible case, either that the amount
is so small or the object is so important that what he asks must be
granted, and he will have some eager constituents to back him up. The