Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow AGRICULTURAL HORSES TAX 5 April 1821 - The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence

Return to Title Page for The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence

AGRICULTURAL HORSES TAX 5 April 1821 - David Ricardo, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence [1819]

Edition used:

The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, ed. Piero Sraffa with the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 5 Speeches and Evidence 1815-1823.

Part of: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 11 vols (Sraffa ed.)

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


AGRICULTURAL HORSES TAX
5 April 1821

Mr. Curwen moved for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the tax upon horses employed in agriculture.

Mr. Ricardo said, he should certainly give his support to the motion. He should do so on the same principle on which he had voted for repealing the last duty on malt1 , not because it was in itself a bad tax, or pressed with peculiar hardship on the landed interest, but with a view of compelling the observance of strict economy in the administration of government. It was his belief that the whole amount of the malt tax might be saved by measures of economy; and as he looked upon the sinking fund to be utterly useless—to be at this moment unproductive of one single good effect—he was quite disposed to abrogate every tax so long as any portion of that fund remained in existence.2 The hon. mover had stated, that foreign monarchs were embarking in the corn trade, that they were becoming merchants, and that the king of Sweden was importing oats into this country. Now if this were the fact, he for one should rather rejoice at it, because he should expect to make much better bargains with kings and princes than with their subjects. The hon. gentleman, however, need not be under any alarm; for if, as he represented, these trading potentates would not take back our hardware and pottery in exchange, and would receive nothing but bullion, there was a sufficient security for our continuing to grow our own corn.

Mr. Baring ‘expressed his regret at hearing this question argued with reference to the conflicting interests of different classes of the community. It gave him some surprise to find his hon. friend treating a great national subject [the sinking fund] in a way which, practically considered, he must pronounce extraordinary and almost absurd.’

The motion was withdrawn.

[1 ]On 21 March 1821 Mr. Western’s motion for the repeal of the additional Malt Duty imposed in 1819 had been carried against the Government by 149 votes to 125; but the bill was lost on the second reading, on 3 April, by 144 to 242. In both cases Ricardo voted for repeal.

[2 ]The Times’s report here adds: ‘According to the representations of an hon. bart. (Sir T. Lethbridge) the whole pressure of taxation fell on those classes of the community interested in agriculture; but to this proposition he could by no means assent. The fundholders had a very large share, a share which, if fairly examined and compared, would be found to constitute a full proportion. If foreign corn were imported, the landowners’ means might be diminished; but the property and industry of the country would find another and more profitable channel of employment.’