Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow BANK CHARTER 31 May 1822 - 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

BANK CHARTER 31 May 1822 - 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.


BANK CHARTER
31 May 1822

Mr. Grenfell presented a petition against the proposed renewal of the Bank of England charter [cp. p. 156, n. 3, above] and remarked on the ‘immense profits’ made by the Bank during the last twenty years and ‘their tyrannous conduct towards government and towards the public’.

Mr. Ricardo did not complain of the Bank directors for making the concern as profitable as possible; but he complained of ministers for having made such improvident bargains with the Bank, as to enable that establishment to make those enormous profits. He should oppose to the utmost the renewal of the Bank charter, because he was satisfied that every farthing made by the Bank ought to belong to the public. Even if a paper currency were wanted, ministers could accomplish the object more advantageously for the public without, than with the assistance of the Bank of England.1

[1 ]In place of the last sentence the Morning Chronicle reports: ‘He could not agree with the authorities that had been quoted to prove that the Bank of England was any great advantage to the country. Its only use was to establish a paper currency, and that object could be attained in other modes without the loss to the public that had actually been incurred.’