Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow II: GENERAL COURT OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND121 December 1815 - 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

Search this Title:

II: GENERAL COURT OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND121 December 1815 - 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.


II

GENERAL COURT OF PROPRIETORS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND1
21 December 1815

Mr. Bouverie moved ‘that an account be laid before a General Court...of the amount of the surplus profits of this Company’.

Mr. Ricardo warmly supported the motion, and wished to recal the Court to the consideration of the real question before them, which appeared to him to be, whether the system to be acted upon should be that which was prescribed by the law of the land, and by the Bank Charter, or whether the Proprietors should be deprived of that participation in the profits to which they were, both by the one and the other, so clearly entitled. It had been contended by the Gentlemen who had preceded him, that on the present extended scale of the commerce of the country, the profits of the Bank, instead of being divided among the Proprietors ought to go to an increase of its capital. Now, though he might be of opinion that a Bank, deriving its profits from the capitals of others, required no such increase of capital for itself, yet it was nevertheless a matter of indifference to him in which of the two modes the accumulated profits should be applied; all he contended for was, that the Proprietors had a right in the production of such accounts as would exhibit the actual amount of such profits, and that it might be a subject of future regulation how they should be disposed of.

Mr. Mellish, the Governor, ‘then rose and said that he felt he should be betraying his duty were he to answer the topics urged by the last speaker, as well as the mover; that the Company had all along placed great confidence in their Directors; and that if any reason were harboured for wishing to withdraw it, he begged that their accusation might be spoken out.’

The question was put, and ‘on a shew of hands was lost by about two to one.’

[The question was raised again before a General Court of Proprietors held on 21 March 1816 to declare a Dividend, when an amendment was moved for the adjournment of the Court until 28 March to enable the Governor and Directors to produce accounts showing the surplus profits. The amendment being defeated, a paper signed by eleven Proprietors, including Ricardo, was delivered to the Governor demanding a ballot on the motion of amendment. The ballot took place on 26 March and resulted in the defeat of the motion by 393 votes to 69.1 ]

[1 ]This report, taken from the Morning Post of 23 Dec. 1815, seems more accurate than those in the other newspapers. Ricardo wrote to Malthus on 24 December that the reporters ‘were most carefully excluded from the Court’, and that the Morning Chronicle had imputed to him what he ‘neither felt nor uttered’. For Ricardo’s own account of his speech see the same letter (below, VI, 335–6), and Economical and Secure Currency (above, IV, 106). The report in the Morning Chronicle of 22 December, to which he objected, was as follows: ‘Mr. D. Ricardo argued in favour of the motion; he stated that he was a great friend to publicity; that he attached no blame to the Directors, on the contrary was ready to give his testimony in their favour, but still that the law of the land was paramount to every consideration, and that no argument of advantage such as had been stated by his neighbour (Mr. Payne) could weigh against it; he would acquiesce in any distribution the Bank Directors might choose to make; that Bankers differed from every other trader, they trade with others’ capital, merchants of every degree with their own.’

[1 ]See the Star, 23 and 27 March 1816.