Ricardo in Parliament

Edwin Cannan

Economic Journal, Volume 4 (1894)

After his retirement from business, Ricardo, as McCulloch's preface to his collected Works tells us,

`determined to extend the sphere of his usefulness by entering the House of Commons.' That an

economist and retired stockjobber worth three-quarters of a million should have any difficulty, in

carrying out This plan probably never occurred to any one at that time, and. McCulloch continues

without a break, `In 1819 he took his seat as member for Portarlington.' The electors of Portarlington

are said to have been about twelve in number. Probably Ricardo never saw them.

All that we

them are merely brief, casual remarks, occupy together 177 columns of Hansard. The Han- sard of

that period seldom gives the list of the majority in parliamentary divisions, but from February 21,

1819, to September 10, 1823, there are 237 lists of minorities, and Ricardo's name occurs in 166 of

them. It also occurs in eight out of the nine lists of majorities. That he voted in many of the majorities

of which the names are not recorded is improbable, but even if he voted in none of them it is clear

that he must have attended divisions most conscientiously.

As regards the miscellaneous questions of general politics which concern an economist no more

than any other citizen, Ricardo invariably acted with the most liberal section of the House. The very

first vote which he cast (March 2, 1819) was in favour of Sir James Mackintosh's motion for a

committee to inquire into the criminal law with a view to reducing its excessive severity. He voted for

bad measures would be abandoned, and that public opinion would be respected.' Such meetings

were inconvenient, he admitted, and were not `the sort of check which ought to exist in a well-

administered government,' but till Parliament was reformed it was necessary.

`He had read with surprise the abhorrence of radical reform ex- pressed by several members of that

House. He believed there were among the advocates of that measure wicked and designing men.

But he also knew that there was a great number of very honest men who believed universal suffrage

and annual parliaments were the only means of protecting the rights of the people and establishing

an adequate check upon government. He had the same object as they professed to have in view;

but he thought that suffrage far from universal would effect that object, and form a sufficient check.

He therefore thought it would be madness to attempt a reform to that extent, when a less extensive

franchise.' It might be supposed that if they were able to vote freely' the effect would be that in time

the people would get rid of the lords.' But

`The people would never, when left to their own free and unbiassed choice, be anxious to get rid of

that which they considered the instrument of their good government; and unless gentlemen were

prepared to assert that the lords were an instrument of bad government, which he believed nobody

would assert, they could not entertain any rational fear that the people would be anxious to get rid of

them.'

(3)

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

In a longer speech delivered on Lord John Russell's motion in 1828, he divided the subject into

three parts: (1) the extension of the suffrage. (2) the mode of election, and (3) the duration of

Parliaments.

him to be of deeper interest.' He inquired, `Of what use was it that the power of choosing its

On questions of foreign policy he did not speak, except once on March 18, 1828, when he rose to

protest against the inference that those who, like himself, had attended a dinner given to the

Spanish minister, were in favour of war. `He felt a deep sympathy with the Spanish people,' but `had

no hesitation in declaring his opinion that it would be wise in this country to keep out of the war.' He

voted consistently against the Foreign Enlistment and Alien Bills.

As to the Queen, he voted against the Government but did not speak.

A subject on which he seems to have expended some study, and to have felt very keenly, was the

policy of prosecutions for blasphemy. He was in favour of the mast unrestricted liberty of expression,

as well - as of opinion. Speaking on March 26, 1823, in favour of the prayer of Mary Ann Carlile for

the remission of the exorbitant fine, non-payment of which was detaining her in gaol after the

committing it, was aware of what he was offending against. It was one thing in this country and

another in France. . . . He must now inform the House that after a long and attentive consideration of

the: question, he had made up his mind' that prosecutions ought never- to be instituted for religions

opinions. All religious opinions, however absurd and, extravagant, might be conscientiously believed

by some individuals. Why, then, was one man to set up his ideas on the subject as the criterion from

which no other, was to be allowed to differ with impunity? Why was one man to be considered

infallible, and all his fellow men as frail and erring creatures? Such a doctrine ought not to be

tolerated; it savoured too much of the Inquisition - to be received as genuine in a free country like

England. A fair and free discussion ought to be allowed on all religious topics. If the arguments

advanced upon them were incorrect and blasphemous, surely they might be put down by sound

deprecating the prosecutions for blasphemy. Joseph Hume delivered a long speech and proposed a

resolution to the effect that Free discussion has been attended with more benefit than injury to the

community, and it is unjust and inexpedient to expose any person to legal penalties on account of

the expression of opinions on matters of. religion.' Wilberforce opposed, objecting to `ribaldry and

indecency,' and again quoting Palsy. Ricardo followed in support of the motion. Paley, he thought,

was more liberal than Wilberforce, and `he, as well as the other chief ornaments of the Church, for

instance, Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Porteous, had asserted, in the largest sense, the right of unfettered

opinion.' As in his speech of March 26, he drifted into an attack on the plan of asking a wit- ness

whether he believed in a future state. He read a long passage from Tillotson

`for the purpose of showing, and from a great authority in the Church. that the obligation of religion

susceptible of moral feeling because he was incredulous upon matters of religion? Would any man

pretending to honour or candour say that Mr. Owen, after a life spent in improving the condition of

others, had a mind less pure, a heart less sincere, or a less conviction of the restraint and control of

moral rectitude than if he were more imbued With the precepts of religious obligation? Why, then,

was such a man (for so by the law he was) to be excluded from the pale of legal credibility? Why

was he, if he promulgated his opinions, to be liable to spend his days immured in a prison?'

As for making the reservation that attacks on religion must not be made with `levity and ribaldry,' he

asked

`What was it but to say" You may discuss, if you please, in the most solemn, most serious, and

therefore most influential manner, any topic of religion you please; but the moment you discuss it

With levity or ribaldry, that is, in such a manner as to be sure to offend the common sense of

mankind, and therefore deprive you of really acquiring any serious proselytes, then the law takes

world called vice it ought to be considered his misfortune merely, and that therefore no man could

be a proper object for punishment. This doctrine was interwoven in his system; and he who held it

could not impute to the Omnipotent Being a desire to punish those who, in this view, could not be

considered responsible for their actions.'

Ricardo's name appears in neither of the two lists of votes on the Roman Catholic question which

are given in Hansard during the period covered by his parliamentary career. As one of these lists

gives the names both of the majority and minority, we must conjecture that he remained neutral.

This is curious. Can it have been due to some compact with the power which gave him his seat for

Portarlington?

subject is that of June 12, 1822, against Western's motion for a committee. In it he went thoroughly

into the distinction between `depreciation' and `diminution of value,' quoted the pamphlet of 1816,

`Without naming him, the hon. gentleman alluded to him and his opinion in a way that no one could

mistake the person meant, and said that it required the utmost extent of charity to believe that in the

advice he had given he was not influenced by interested motives. The hon. gentleman would have

remunerating price' for grain. `You might,' he said, `have fifty remunerating prices according as your

capital was employed on productive or unproductive lands.' Endeavouring to prove the doctrine of

his Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn, and of his speech of December 16, 1819, he said

and being sold to the consumer at the same rate, the 10 per cent. (difference) would necessarily be

a reduction from the profits of stock. If food was high here and cheap abroad, stock would thus have

a tendency to leave the country and to settle where higher profits could be realised.'

which it bore in other countries.' The existing system produced a glut of corn whenever the price

rose above 80s.

`The system which had been proposed by the hon. member for Bridgenorth, of duties that should

rise as the price of corn fell, and fall as the price of corn rose, he could not consider a very wise one.

What would he the situation of the grower, if such a system were put in practice? Supposing he had

to contend with the deficiencies of a short crop in one season, he naturally expected to make up for

them in the next season. But the adoption of these duties would leave him no such remedy for his

misfortunes.

The depression of agriculture was not, he felt sure, due to taxation, for taxation raised the price of

products instead of lowering them. `Take,' he said, `the commonest article of trade; a hat, for

much capital gained by him. But here again an erroneous idea prevailed. The House was told of the

capital which was employed in land, and told in a manner as if it was absolutely and entirely vested

in it. Let them just consider, however, the wages of labour, the price of improvements, the charges

of manure, and they would find that the total cost of all these items would be a capital saved.'

Speaking on Brougham's motion for reduction of the taxation of the agricultural and other classes on

February 11, 1822, he acknowledged boldly that be wished to see a diminution in the quantity of

land under tillage

`His hon. and learned friend had stated that, unless something were done to relieve the farmer,

much of the land would be thrown out of tillage. He said so too; and it was to that very circumstance

that he looked forward as a remedy.'

agriculture had spoken of the imposition of duties to `countervail' not only the taxes on agricultural

produce, but also the whole additional expense of growing corn in this country as compared with

other countries. But to such duties there could be no limit, since as population increased, poorer and

poorer lands would be taken into cultivation, and the expense of production would keep on rising.