IV.

6

CHAP. treaty with France, Pitt showed his appreciation of Adam Smith. In supporting Parliamentary Reform he displayed an inclination to accept the utility' doctrine. Up to 1790 everything pointed to the gradual adoption of the novel principles which Adam Smith and Bentham had applied to legislation. The happy promise, which was thus given to the nation, was almost immediately afterwards broken. The circumstances under which it was broken are familiar to nearly every one. The gross abuses which permeated every department of governmeut in France led to the great convulsion of society, which is known in history as the French Revolution. An infuriated people, suddenly emancipating themselves from an oppressive tyranny, and finding themselves in possession of an almost uncontrolled power, were hurried into excesses which it was impossible to defend. The horror which these excesses created produced a reaction in Britain. The generation in which they occurred took its stand on old traditions, and refused to receive any new doctrine. The great convulsion, in short, which

delivered France for ever from some of the worst features of its Government, condemned Britain for another generation to submit to the abuses of the old system.

Burke was, of course, the prominent representative of this reaction. A statesman, whose whole career had been distinguished by admirable efforts to reform and enlighten every department of the Government, was so shocked at the course which Revolution had taken in France as to modify his old opinions, to sacrifice his old friends, and to support a system which in other times he had resolutely opposed. It is immaterial for the present purpose to consider whether, in 1791, Burke's great intellect had or had not been weakened by affliction and disease. That is a purely personal question, with which

Most people will recollect Buckle's beautiful apology for Burke on

this score. Hist. of Civilisation, vol. i. p. 476.

IV.

this chapter has no immediate concern. In this place CHAP. Burke is merely regarded as the leading spokesman of an influential portion of the nation. The feelings which Burke expressed in Parliament were largely shared by other classes. They influenced the thoughts, the habits, and the writings of Englishmen for twenty years; and thus continued for the whole of that period the remarkable reaction which commenced with the outbreak of the French Revolution.

It is possible to trace the violence of the storm, which was thus raised, in nearly every branch of English literature. Up to the outbreak of the French Revolution, Smith and Bentham had been calmly and logically examining the various questions of policy and government with which they were occupied. After the outbreak of the Revolution, none but the very calmest minds were able to preserve their equilibrium, and political writers were hurried either, like Burke, into a violent attack on the change in France; or, like Paine and Godwin, into as violent a defence of it. Amidst the excitement of the moment the gravest thinkers, in short, became partisan writers. It was, under such circumstances, inevitable that men, like Paine and Godwin, should rush into a defence of the events which Burke so uncompromisingly attacked, and that they should propose to reconstruct society on new principles. But the doctrines of these writers only increased the horror with which the Revolution was already regarded by the more influential section of British society. Godwin, especially, by attacking the traditions which had hitherto been regarded with an undeviating reverence, appeared to be loosening the bands by which society was held together. The Political Justice' of the one author, the Rights of Man' of the other, thus intensified the reaction against the principles which they supported, and convinced the nation of the

VOL. I,

CHAP. necessity of combating a revolution which Burke had condemned and which Pitt was attacking.

IV.

Malthus.

For some years, then, after the French Revolution broke out, the passions, by which men of all classes were agitated, proved unfavourable either for patient inquiry or for careful thought. The recollection of republican excesses was, however, gradually effaced amidst the stirring events by which the Revolution was succeeded; and men, forgetting the extravagances of Godwin and Paine, were able again to devote themselves to speculation and research. Towards the close of the eighteenth century Malthus published his essay on the Principles of Population.' All animals, he showed, had a tendency to increase at a rate of geometrical progression. Their food could not, by any possibility, be increased at a greater rate than that of arithmetical progression. A thousand persons, doubling their numbers in every quarter of a century, would multiply to 16,000 in a hundred years. Their food, during the same period, would be increased fourfold. It was impossible, therefore, for man to go on multiplying at the natural rate of increase. The multiplication was checked by preventive and positive checks. In the early stages of society, the positive checks of famine, war, and disease were in operation. In the later stages, prudential considerations, which Malthus regarded as preventive checks, produced the same effects. It followed from this reasoning that the most populous countries were not necessarily the happiest; and that the men who refrained from marrying might possibly be as good citizens as those who married and had large families. These views were received with a burst of indignation at the time at which they were first published. Starving curates, with large families of starving children, had no patience with a writer who ascribed their misfortunes to their own improvidence. Employers of labour, whose interests depended on the continuance of low wages,

resulting from an overstocked labour market, objected to a philosophy which pointed to an era of dear labour. Even subsequent generations, compelled to accept Malthus's conclusions, have hardly forgiven the writer, who has convinced them against their will; and ignorant people still speak of Malthusian philosophy as if there was something shocking about it.

СНАР.

IV.

Ricardo's great work was published nearly twenty Ricardo. years after the Principles of Population.' Ricardo was of Jewish extraction, and engaged during some years of his life in commercial pursuits. He embraced, however, the doctrines of Christianity and sealed his allegiance to his new faith by marrying a Christian. Amassing a large fortune in business, he decided on exchanging commerce for politics, and entered the House of Commons as member for the Irish borough of Portarlington. The circumstances, under which he obtained his seat, were so characteristic of the times in which he lived, that they deserve to be recorded. Lord Portarlington, the patron of the borough, was desirous of borrowing 40,000l. or 50,000l. But his credit was not good enough to enable him to obtain the money at the rate of interest which the law allowed at that time. Ricardo accommodated him with the loan, and was nominated for Portarlington in return for it. This singular arrangement afforded Ricardo a quiet seat, and gave his country the great advantage of his services in the Legislature. The position, which he gained in the House of Commons, will be seen in later chapters of this work. The present chapter is only concerned with his contributions to political economy. Malthus had addressed himself to a problem which Adam Smith had not noticed. Ricardo had the merit of correcting one of the few defects in the Wealth of Nations.' Adam Smith had concluded that the price of corn was

6

The story was told by O'Connell on March 8, 1831. Hansard, 3rd series, vol. iii. p. 201.

IV.

CHAP. dependent on three things-the wages of labour, the profits of the farmer, and the rent of land. The doctrine had been doubted at the time by Hume, the historian, and Anderson, the well-known author of the 'History of Commerce.' But these doubts were forgotten, and Adam Smith's conclusions were generally accepted, till their erroneous nature was finally demonstrated by Ricardo. Rent is, in reality, the surplus profit which any given land, either from the convenience of its situation or from the fertility of its soil, yields over the worst land in cultivation. The worst land in cultivation pays no rent. This conclusion is now accepted by all reasonable men. In 1816 it had not been realised by even the foremost thinkers of the age.

At the close of the great war, then, four thinkers of unusual power had demonstrated the falsity of the old doctrines which politicians of all classes had previously accepted. Adam Smith, the greatest of the four, had exposed the follies of the old system of protection. Jeremy Bentham had, almost at the same time, attacked the whole system of jurisprudence. Twenty years afterwards Malthus had, for the first time, explained the principles which govern the multiplication of mankind; while, at a still later date, Ricardo had expounded the true theories of Rent. The conclusions of all these great writers had been unfavourable to the system, which the governing classes had hitherto pursued, and to the influence of the landed interest. Adam Smith had exposed the folly of protecting any one class at the expense of others. Bentham, carrying the principle into jurisprudence, had based his polity on the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Malthus's reasoning had pointed to a preference for dear wages; and Ricardo had represented the landlords as monopolists, appropriating the surplus profits of the soil. These great truths, authoritatively propounded for the first time, were generally accepted by the younger