The Utilitarians naturally translated all aspirations into logical dogmas;but some people who despised them as hard-hearted really took much less pains to give effect to their own benevolent impulses.Now Ricardo,in this matter,was at one with James Mill and Bentham,and especially Malthus.49The essential doctrine of Malthus was that the poor could be made less poor by an improved standard of prudence.In writing to Malthus,Ricardo incidentally remarks upon the possibility of raising the condition of the poor by 'good education'and the inculcation of foresight in the great matter of marriage.50Incidental references in the Principles are in the same strain.He accepts Malthus's view of the poor-laws,and hopes that,by encouraging foresight,we may by degrees approach 'a sounder and more healthful state.'51He repudiates emphatically a suggestion of Say that one of his arguments implies 'indifference to the happiness'of the masses,52and holds that 'the friends of humanity'should encourage the poor to raise their standard of comfort and enjoyment.The labourers,as he elsewhere incidentally observes,are 'by far the most important class in society.'53How should they not be if the greatest happiness of the greatest number be the legitimate aim of all legislation?
It is true that in his argument Ricardo constantly assumes that his 'natural price'will also be the real price of labour,the assumption that the labourers'wages tend to a minimum is a base for his general arguments,the inconsistency,if there be one,is easily intelligible,Ricardo agreed with Malthus that,though the standard might be raised,and though a rise was the only way to improvement,the chances of such a rise were not encouraging,improved wages,as he says,54might enable the labourer to live more comfortably if only he would not multiply.But 'so great are the delights of domestic society,that in practice it is invariably found that an increase of population follows an amended condition of the labourer,'and thus the advantage is lost as soon as gained.
I have tried to show what was the logical convenience of the assumption.Ricardo,who has always to state an argument at the cost of an intellectual contortion,is content to lay down a rule without introducing troublesome qualifications and reserves.
Yet he probably held that his postulate was a close approximation to the facts.Looking at the actual state of things at the worst time of the poor-law,and seeing how small were the prospects of stirring the languid mind of the pauper to greater forethought,he thought that he might assume the constancy of an element which varied so slowly.The indifference of the Ricardo school generally to historical inquiry had led them no doubt to assume such constancy too easily.Malthus,who had more leaning to history,had himself called attention to many cases in which the 'prudential check'operated more strongly than it did among,the English poor.Probably Ricardo was in this,as in other cases,too hasty in assuming facts convenient for his argument,the poor man's character can,it is clear,be only known empirically;and,in fact,Ricardo simply appeals to experience.He thinks that,as a fact,men always do multiply in excess,But he does not deny that better education might change their character in this respect,indeed,as I have said,an even excessive faith in the possible modification of character by education was one of the Utilitarian tenets.If Ricardo had said broadly that a necessary condition of the improvement of the poor was a change of the average character,I think that he would have been saying what was perfectly true and very much to the purpose both then and now.The objection to his version of a most salutary doctrine is that it is stated in too narrow terms.The ultimate unit,the human being,is indeed supposed to be capable of great modification,but it is solely through increasing his foresight as to the effects of multiplication that the change is supposed to be attainable.The moral thus drawn implied a very limited view of the true nature and influence of great social processes,and in practice came too often to limiting possible improvement to the one condition of letting things alone.Let a man starve if he will not work,and he will work.That,as a sole remedy,may be insufficient;though,even in that shape,it is a doctrine more likely to be overlooked than overvalued.And meanwhile the acquiescence in the painful doctrine that,as a matter of fact,labourers would always multiply to starvation point,was calculated to produce revolt against the whole system.Macaulay's doctrine that the Utilitarians had made political economy unpopular was so far true that the average person resented the unpleasant doctrines thus obtruded upon him in their most unpleasant shape;and,if he was told that they were embodied logic,revolted against logic itself.
V.THE RICARDIANS
It will be quite sufficient to speak briefly of the minor prophets who expounded the classical doctrine;sometimes falling into fallacies,against which Ricardo's logical instinct had warned him;and sometimes perhaps unconsciously revealing errors which really lurked in his premises.When Ricardo died,James Mill told M'Culloch that they were 'the two and only genuine disciples'of their common friend.55Mill wrote what he intended for a Schoolbook of Political Economy.56Brief,pithy,and vigorous,it purports to give the essential principles in their logical order;but,as his son remarks,57had only a passing importance.M'Culloch took a more important place by his writings in the Edinburgh Review and elsewhere,and by his lectures at Edinburgh and at London.He was one of the first professors of the new university.
